I don't really like most procedural generation. It has no meaning and the results are not intellectually stimulating. At best you can't spot the pattern and parameters but you usually can after a few examples.
An idea I am more interested in is that you generate requirements and use an optimiser to solve the actual design. This way, there is a hidden "why". With some study, a human might be able to discern why x is so thick or why A is attached to B. When a design has a use in mind then it has meaning.
Yeah, as I was watching the animation for the algo, I was thinking how nice it'd be if you added purpose to all these segments and features, then produced ships for various applications through fitness algorithms and evolution.
Simulate a small space economy, create a DAG of how components and materials are produced, simulate situations this ship will be placed in and calculate net present value, see the outcome in the difference between a freighter and a fighter.
Would be pretty funny to see a genetic algorithm go to play on that. I imagine it would end up something like most people screwing around with a spaceship builder "and what if we add forty engines?"
Do you have any practical examples of what you mean? It seems obvious, but getting a computer to understand requirements, and also solve for them and build a realistic 3d model? Seems like an impossible task for current technology.
Demoscene is awesome but I see one off generation as a type of compression. What I have in mind is games where procedurally generated families of things are supposed to be interesting and worth exploring and discovering. I find those underwhelming.
I agree that most procedural generation is underwhelming. Merely remixed/varied things isn't exciting. However, things that have some sort of function -- things that have evolved or have been curated and tweaked -- these things are often very interesting. Procedural generation needs to be attached to such mechanisms and provide tool towards a goal to be interesting.
The point is to create lots of useful content, it doesn't have to be intended or not designed.
Procedural generation can be entirely predictable. Also, if it doesn't fit the eyes of the designer (who could also be the programmer) then the algorithm or parameters will be changed until they do. In that way, most procedurally-generated content is designed.
I was thinking something like this in implementation would be a "race" parameter, or something that would generate random ships, but with identifiable traits across the fleet. You get a sort of intellectual stimulation there from a cultural aspect (Klingon design is decidedly different from Romulan), but without the minutiae of actual designing ships.
Yes, this is the eternal 'intelligent design' vs. 'natural process' question, in a new light. I agree that artifacts look more convincing if they are designed (by a human), but there is still no reason to object to using a computer to help generate a multitude of variants of something based on the original design (constraints), from which one can choose what they like. At the same time, there is nothing wrong with (much) less involvement on the part of a human in generating natural objects - landscapes, trees, planets, or even animals, as nobody has designed (originally) these things in the real world.
I think (maybe) you're arguing for using genetic algorithms for generating these things, which would be very cool. Unfortunately, modeling realistic requirements is generally harder than most programmers would think.
Your idea is interesting so I tried to think of things that employed it in the past.
Basically, you're arguing for stronger creation tools for a narrow ___domain.
The spore creature creator seems to be an example. It was awesome for the variety and I wish that portion of the game could have been taken up more my the industry as a content creation tool for devs.
At the same time, models in spore look pretty same-y - as is the problem with all procedural content.
An idea I am more interested in is that you generate requirements and use an optimiser to solve the actual design. This way, there is a hidden "why". With some study, a human might be able to discern why x is so thick or why A is attached to B. When a design has a use in mind then it has meaning.