But it should make a difference whether you use a small part again in a scene or whether you only build a small part from scratch.
Take a look at the picture of the Cone Head Shop and you can see that only one ice cream was added to it. Otherwise nothing new or different.
I think that’s disappointing if you see it as the contest or the challenge and during which the pictures of the others, which were apparently created from scratch, are then rated identically.
Perhaps it is a good idea to rate open posts or posts with a high proportion of recycled objects with half a point and pure posts that have been created from scratch with a whole point. That would simply be an incentive to not recycle too much of the existing objects.
And then maybe more people will take part in the contest again?
People are open with what parts are new and what parts are re-used, so it’s up to each voter how to weigh that in their voting. It would be strange for the people holding the contest to decide that votes for open entries are worth half as much. People voted for it knowing it was open
I guess there could be separate polls for open and pure but that would only create more drama because people draw the line for what is pure very differently.
I, for example, often use photo textures, like the ground in this week’s entry or external post-procssing, and say it’s still pure but some people only accept it as pure if everything is made in blender.
Indeed, in theory we could think of a bunch of distinct categories which make up an average entry. Each of these would have an importance-factor and a pureness-factor assigned to it. Each voter would then have to rate each entry based on all categories. We would get an entrie’s overall points by adding up all of the its category-points (multiplied with the respective factors).
I’m making a little fun up there but this actually is a difficult topic. (One we have never found the perfect solution for.) It isn’t even possible to give a definitive answer to the question: “Is this entry pure or open.” The answer is “It depends… on a lot of things.” (It actually is fine to use some pre-made objects within pure entries.) This is why we went with this:
The creator decides (in accordance with the rules) if the entry should be considered pure or open.
The creator adds a description to the entry, stating why it is open…
And as @linuus stated: With this information, each voter can decide if an entry should win or not. Actually, I currently don’t see a better way to keep things accessible, fair and simple at the same time.
For me the weekend challenges are a way to better learn Blender and the time constraint forces me to actually finish stuff (my hard drive is full of partly finished Blender files which I lost interest in). Furthermore, video tutorials are an important source to learn Blender, so for me it is only natural that I also use them for a weekend challenge. What I try to do lately is acknowledge the sources I learned from, but even that can only be partial because all aspects of my entries I have learned from a tutorial sometime in the past.
The Pure versus Open discussion might get even more diffuse in the future, now that Blender has an asset manager. I tend to start using it for materials, part of which will be literally copied from other sources. This means that also for the weekend challenges I will probably not create new materials when my material collection grows. Will that make the entries Open?
A year ago, most of my entries were pure: Everything, including the procedural materials were done from scratch. Participants would submit entries using downloaded elaborate background images and characters generated by the make human and Manuel Bastioni addons, claiming they were pure entries: The integrity of the participants in the challenge is currently pretty high, compared to past challenges.
I am currently working a job that leaves me exhausted: Weekends are for resting. It took me 2 days to create the ice-cream. The cone head project was done for a monthly challenge, from scratch, a few years ago. Everything I bring to this challenge has been created by me. My characters are reused models that I created using what I learned from tutorials. Looking through past works in order to create something theme relevant is actually quite challenging for me at the moment.
If the rules were different, my entries would be different.
I am going to add my 2 cents worth since that’s twice what it is worth.
Skillful lighting and composition are remarkable skills on their own. This is from someone who doesn’t have those skills. I can model moderately well. I sell individual models consistently in my cnc store. I also just graduated from a 3d animation and VFX class. It was very evident to me how bad my skills were even though I could model better than 95 percent of the class. They very quickly passed me up. I did get better but I still suck at it.
And also this is for fun and to learn. There are many different facets to a 3d environment. Modeling is just one of them. There are 3d professionals who never model anything. They purchase them or have others model what they need.
So after all that hot wind, I am always impressed in the renders you all submit every week. Amazing to great efforts and everything in between.
If I’m not mistaken the impact of pre-made materials has never really been specified (like textures which are a similar topic.). As long as these aren’t super fancy node monsters which save hours or days of time, this probably doesn’t matter all that much.
I’m not sure if the asset manager will make that much of a difference, though. Until 3.0, Blender came with the BlenderKit addon (which seems to be gone now). There have always been a lot of ways for recycling old or external resources. For now, I don’t think that this requires changes to the challenge, but I guess, we may have more open entries in the future.
And… the winner of Weekend Challenge 964 with votes from 33.3% of the voters is… mali_zweipunktnull!
As we have a tie between entries (mali_zweipunktnull, parclite), the earliest submitted pure entry wins.
Hey, thank you That was really unexpected and then I was only lucky enough to have submitted a little earlier.
I’ve only been with Blender for just over 3 months and it’s a lot of fun. I suggested 2 topics to Helge, let’s see which one it will be.
I also have to learn that some objects in the picture simply don’t have to be very detailed. I always spend a lot of time on little things that you don’t even see in the finished picture. Like the director’s chair at Hitchcock or the cookies in this picture. Very simple objects would have been enough.
I’ve been watching these challenges since 2017 and participated in them up until earlier this year when I branched off to other projects. The open and pure debate has come up many many times since I’ve been here and has always seemed to begin and end the same way. The recurring problem that sparks the debate is 99% of the time a frustration with the distribution votes, or someone incorrectly labelling a project pure that people think should be labelled open.
The biggest lesson I have learned from watching over time is that it doesn’t matter. This challenge is not really meant as a gateway to blender fame and the votes do not provide that service regardless. The votes are one motivator to the true goal which is to work on projects, and learn and grow each week. The skills and knowledge I obtained from this challenge were way more beneficial to me as an artist than any amount of votes I received. I admit there were weeks where I contributed more lazy open entries (that I was not proud of) but the point is that I contributed and I completed something in a week where I otherwise didn’t want to. (Not saying any of the entries this week were lazy, almost all the open entries I have seen here require a good amount of work and deserve the votes that come their way)
It isn’t advertised this way but the votes are truly a secondary reward to participation here. You can’t change the way people vote but you can change the way you feel about the voting system in general.
I think it is pretty clear why this is discussed from time to time. However, as long as we want to keep the challenge open for all kinds of entries (which I still think is a good idea), I simply don’t see a simple solution that would make the need for discussion go away once and for all.
Sorry to hear that. I mean, if you create something, you might as well share it with the community. There is always something to be learned - and who wouldn’t like more diversity among entries? Btw. You could also enter ‘non competing’ entries, which is a great way of participating while staying out of the voting. (It can also be quite liberating.)
The intention of the categorization itself is actually great, to encourage people into model at least most of the objects by themselves and minimize third party assets involvement. The problem rises up since the category selection is entirely given to the participant, instead of being screened first by the moderator, for example. However, please keep in mind that Helge here is a one-man-show that has been keeping the challenge running smooth so far by himself, so adding more responsibilities might be not be the wisest of decision (maybe we can have a panel of moderators then?).
One possible alternative, is to require all participants to mention or list their models sources (self made and/or from third party sources), which will be included in the voting thread (just like in the open category), hopefully the voters will have enough info for their judgement. This actually can eliminate the need for open/pure categorization, should that be neccessary. In the event of a tie, the ‘earliest submitted entry’ rule can be used for selection of the winner for quick result, or we can think of yet another set of (new?) rules.
Anyway, until we can all (or mostly) agree on some new arrangements (which would be the hardest part), we have to use the current rules, with all its ups and downs, for now, while still gathering ideas/input along the way. Hope some of it will then get to see the light of day.