Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2022 21:27:52 UTC No. 900311

Blender is fully open-source and supports python scripting so you could theoretically add a "w axis" to the software, though I don't know how you could handle 4D meshes.

Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2022 22:08:00 UTC No. 900317

>>900301
How would you unwrap it, though?

Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2022 22:16:48 UTC No. 900321

you know what I'm curious as well, what would be the best software for modeling a 4d shape? the tesseract in the gif is doing a good job, but even then it's just a 3d model folding in on itself. would it be better to just custom program sliders or values to make a 3d shape that mimicks a 4d shape?

Anonymous at Sun, 29 May 2022 23:20:17 UTC No. 900328

>>900301
Anything more complex than a basic 4D shape will be nearly impossible since it is already hard to wrap your head around the basic shapes.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 00:43:00 UTC No. 900351

>>900301
yes. animation = time is 4th dimension. uv = 5th and 6th. enjoy.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 05:52:22 UTC No. 900407

>>900317
https://youtu.be/TocEqmlGyhk

>>900351
You know this isn't what I meant, cunt.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 06:40:49 UTC No. 900415

>>900301
I guess google is listening to me or some shit, this was in my suggestions
https://youtu.be/u8LMyWcKL_c
interesting take on a 4 dimensional representation

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 06:43:02 UTC No. 900416

>>900415
This game inspired me to make this post, actually. I have played the demo for 22 hours, just building stuff.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 13:21:07 UTC No. 900446

>>900321
yes and no, we can only ever represent higher dimensional geometry by "converting" it into our 3d world. it is mathematically possible to do this conversion, so you could calculate forms in higher dimensions and then transfer those calculations into 3rd dimension with math, but how to actually do this visually with a program, i dont know. therefore the easiest way would be to use your suggestion and do a "faux" 4d by mimicking it

Anonymous at Mon, 30 May 2022 15:25:51 UTC No. 900457

>>900446
You could either project the 4D objects onto 3D space or display them one 3D slice at a time, like pictured here:
http://hi.gher.space/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23519

Anonymous at Tue, 31 May 2022 10:04:40 UTC No. 900603

>>900301
>>900321
>>900328
It's not possible. What you see as a tesseract is just the shadow of a 4-d cube being projected on the "walls" of our 3 dimensions. There is another part that you can never see.

Imagine if you could only see a slice of a cube. What would it be? A square. That's what a tesseract is. It's not real. It's not the real object.

Anonymous at Tue, 31 May 2022 11:35:10 UTC No. 900609

>>900603
I know that I wouldn't be able to see the full picture, I played 4D Toys. Tell me why it's impossible or at least not practical to give Blender an extra spatial axis from a software standpoint.

Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jun 2022 19:18:08 UTC No. 901274

Houdini.

https://vimeo.com/349801935

Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jun 2022 15:59:43 UTC No. 901393

>>900301
You'd have to really make your own.

>>900351
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space
In spacetime, time as a fourth dimension is special, interacting with three dimensional space, but it's not the same thing as four spatial dimensions.

Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:09:08 UTC No. 901394

>>900609
and how would you display it?

Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:13:24 UTC No. 901395

>>900609
It's not impossible, it's just impractical to work with. Imagine trying to make 3D meshes while only being able to interact with a fully flat 2D cross section of it at a time, not just a projection, but a real cross-section, and you'd start getting the idea of why it's so weird. You've got 4D primitives projected into 3D space and then that projected onto a 2D screen. Rotation in 4D space is already a really weird concept to try to wrap your head around in the first place.
Also realize that just as 3D can be projected into 2D with many different projections and perspectives (orthographic, frustum, one-point, two-point, three-point), 4D has way more possible projections and perspectives.

You're much better off just representing 4D mathematically. Trying to use visual editing to make models in dimensions you can't visualize is going to lose a lot and either have to simplify greatly, or give you the power and be incredibly unwieldy and hard to work with.

Remember, it's not just 3D space with points that transition to a different spot based on a W variable, like some people try to represent it. Every point actually has 4 dimensions, and is projected into 3D space.

A standard point is 0 dimensions, 1 point.
A standard line segment is 1 dimension, 2 points, -1 to 1 (+/-1)
A standard square is 2 dimensions, 4 points, (+/-1, +/-1) for ((1, 1), (1, -1), (-1, -1), (1, -1)).
A standard cube is 3 dimensions, 8 points, (+/-1, +/-1, +/-1).
A standard tesseract is 4 dimensions, 16 points, (+/-1, +/-1, +/-1, +/-1).
That W dimension is inherently part of the tesseract. The 3-dimensional projection doesn't even need to have X, Y, and Z between its normal X, Y and Z, because projections can involve arbitrary transformations (think fish-eye, and other skew that can be applied to 3D projections into 2D). Projecting 4D for working on a 2D screen is technically easy to calculate, but trying to use that to work in 4D space is not easy.

Anonymous at Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:21:08 UTC No. 902719

>>900311
bind the w axis to scroll or something so you can move the intersection around.
Or bind some shortcut keys like the numpad to align the camera with the wx wy and wz plane.

Anonymous at Sun, 12 Jun 2022 23:47:38 UTC No. 903011

>>902719
Scroll wheel could work to an extent, you'd need to have a number presented for the axis that isn't visualized (that is to say, the w-axis, unless you rotate the hyperplane you're visualizing from xyz). There definitely also needs to be a manual input though. You'll have no reliable visual frame of reference for where you are along the w-axis relative to the points you've placed, so you want to be very precise.
You'd probably want at least one projection option for visualization too.

>>901395
Hard disagree. You make good points about what options there are, but the issue is that that whole concept isn't really something for the average person to consider until 4-space becomes intuitive to them. With math, it will never become intuitive. In Hinton's books, he argues that if there's any value to 4-space, one needs to understand it in a way that is not abstracted before they can determine what that value is. I'd say that's especially true of 4D art. Maybe the cross-section is unwieldy, but it will bring about more intuition. We can't comprehend or evaluate different modes of visualization properly until we at least do a bit of exploration.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:22:25 UTC No. 903084

>>903011
My point is that you can visualize it as 3D cross-sections in the same way as you can visualize 3D as 2D cross-sections. You couldn't see individual vertices in any workable way in their actual positions. That's what the sliding scale of W would actually do. It's just 3D cross-sections, so you'd only actually see a vertex if it matched your w position.
To make 3D editing workable on a 2D monitor, you have to deal with projection so you can see vertices, and you can actually see with a function of all axes at once. So it also goes for 4D, except the projection into 3D is something that is very difficult to conceptualize, and editing a vertex that is a projection of 4 axes into 2D space (or even 3D space) is incredibly unintuitive at best.

4-dimensional space is inherently unintuitive. You can not visualize it, and any transformations in 4D space are difficult to really feel out when projected into 3D. This here is a simple rotation of a tesseract projected into 3D. It's not intuitive and can not be without a math understanding. If you understand this double rotation intuitively but the math of it is beyond you, you are an alien. There is no intuitive understanding of 4D space without math, bar none.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:22:34 UTC No. 903116

>>900301
3d is countless 2d stacked and 4d is countless 3d stacked imo atleast.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:26:10 UTC No. 903322

>>901274
I've seen this video, but I cannot find any material on this topic beyond it.

Anonymous at Tue, 14 Jun 2022 13:21:07 UTC No. 903324

wait, you guys really can't conjure a perfect 4d apple in your mind's eye??

Anonymous at Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:55:08 UTC No. 903572

>>903324
these npc types probably don't even have an internal open auditorium of debate where you simulate at least 30 completely unique personalities at 60,000 times normal speed in order to make decisions

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jun 2022 18:20:29 UTC No. 904323

>>900301
>Is it possible to make 4D shapes in a 3D modeling software
I wonder

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jun 2022 18:33:43 UTC No. 904328

>>904323
4D modeling software is too niche to exist, but this doesn't stop people from making 4D models. Just look at this: https://youtu.be/0t4aKJuKP0Q
Hell, I've seen people make models of even higher dimensions than 4: https://youtu.be/sT-Ob65QRd0
This one was created just using math, but I don't see why it would be impossible to make proper 4D models by using a combination of regular and procedural modelling (unless an addon that allows this simply cannot be created due to Blender's limitations, of course).

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:46:11 UTC No. 904447

>>903572
that sounds painful desu

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:48:52 UTC No. 904589

>>904447
You're big guy.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:06:00 UTC No. 905549

>search for 'blender tesseract'
>a million tutorials
No OP. It's literally impossible. Fucking retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:15:27 UTC No. 905550

>>905549
The only retard here is you. I don't want to make an animation of a perspective projection rotating, I want a editor that allows for procedural creation of 4D models, and viewing them either as projections or slice-by-slice.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:12:56 UTC No. 905710

>>905550
>Do geonodes tutorial of a 4d cube
>Keep the base mesh procedural
>Apply it to different shapes

You're just too retarded to apply math nigger.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:39:05 UTC No. 905712

>>900301
>Is it possible to make 4 dimensional models with Blender

...even n dimensions are possible!

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:29:44 UTC No. 905749

>>905712
That's not what a wireframe projection of a 6D cube would look like.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:32:32 UTC No. 905750

>>905710
Can you link it?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:38:45 UTC No. 905770

>>905749

...rly?

Anonymous at Tue, 28 Jun 2022 16:45:20 UTC No. 905771

>>905770
Yes, each vertex would have to have 6 edges coming out of it, with a total of 64 vertices. It's a complete clusterfuck.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 07:04:36 UTC No. 905871

>>905771
you just posted a pic and it shows a cube exactly like the one the other guy posted

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:08:44 UTC No. 905885

>>905871
If you assume that some vertices and edges in his image are overlapping, then yes, I guess I did. But I'm pretty sure he was trying to make a joke, and I took it seriously.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:18:45 UTC No. 905889

>>900328
No its HARD to wrap your head around faggot. Speak to your own limitations. Not everybody else limits their minds like you do.

Before you say its never been proven. Why the fuck would anybody go through the trouble of proving that they can easily see in 4,5,6,7+ dimensions when all your going to do is deny it to protect your fragile ego.

>You can see in 19 dimensions!?
>I can't do that so that means your lying!!!!

Go read more books to further reinforce the walls of your mental prison.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:21:02 UTC No. 905890

>>901393
Of course it's special. Time especially doesn't exist. Now fuck off with wikipedia. An resource literally designed to prevent you from leaving the realm of science.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:22:50 UTC No. 905891

>>905749
Please share with us what other people have "told" you that a 6D cube should look like and you haven't figured out on your own.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 10:30:34 UTC No. 905893

>>905891
This "argument" can be applied to every piece of knowledge you didn't discover yourself, like history, biology, geography, physics, astronomy, etc. Also, consider this:
A line has 2 vertices with 1 edge coming out of each;
A square has 4 vertices with 2 perpendicular edges coming out of each;
A 3D cube has 8 vertices with 3 perpendicular edges coming out of each.
By this logic, you can assume that:
A 4D cube has 16 vertices with 4 perpendicular edges coming out of each;
A 5D cube has 32 vertices with 5 perpendicular edges coming out of each;
A 6D cube has 64 vertices with 6 perpendicular edges coming out of each.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:49:31 UTC No. 905946

>>905889
It's sad to see someone project their insecurities so hard and cope at the same time in a single post.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:50:33 UTC No. 905947

>>905889
>>905891
>>905890
>DUDE WEED LMAO

Anonymous at Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:33:54 UTC No. 906006

>>903084
>4-dimensional space is inherently unintuitive.
Under our current circumstances. People can get accustomed to manipulating 4d objects via simulation, for example. Hinton even produced a set of blocks meant to help one conceptualize 4D objects. Ans what do you even mean by "math"? Is the basic concept of the w-axis being 90 degrees off from every possible axis in 3-space "math"? I mean, that may technically be the case, but this can be taught to someone with no formal education in mathematics via analogy.

Anyway, on your first point, I don't think that you're correct but even if you are, it's a fine tool accepting those limitations. Let's say I want to make a 4-simplex. I can define a pyramid in three space and then, knowing where the center of the simplex is, place a point at that location with a w-offset. Making a regular simplex would require a bit of math, but even a layman like myself with almost 0 background in math can do that with a few moments of research and a calculator. Making a regular hypercube would be even easier and require basically no math.
And now to return to the point that we can only see one slice at a time, who says so? If an animator can show "shadows" of the future and past while animating, who says a 4D-object editor cannot show "shadows" of ana and kata in his modeling software?

Finally, I'd like to point out that the tesseract you show becomes a lot easier to grasp with a simple unfolding, which, again, a layman can understand with a bit of explanation. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Net_of_tesseract.gif)