Sfdebris.net

Nessus wrote:

MadAmosMalone wrote:Also agree, though I would like to know more about what you mean by unintentionally ironic industrial designs. The show is basically a more or less "traditional" space opera but they've gone out of their way to try and depict space travel more realistically than any other show that has come before. I really think this is the sci-fi show I've been waiting for since B5 went off the air.

Apologies for taking so log to respond. Real life got busy for a bit.

Anyway, as a (very amateur) artist, with a life-long interest in science-fiction and to a lesser degree fantasy, I've put a disproportionate amount of thought over time into the conceptual back-end of sci-fi visual design. Please forgive me if this gets long winded. As I say, this represents years of mental chewing.

One of the things I've noticed is that the thing that most effects the "look" of technology is not the technological principles of the thing itself, but more the technology used to manufacture it, particularly to laymen who may not understand either tech. For example: to a lay viewer, the only major intrinsic technological difference between a modern luxury yacht and a 17th century one is the lack of sails in the former. However the two still look vastly different due to the fact that the modern one was obviously built with materials and methods that allow for shapes and surfaces that probably could have been abstractly drawn in the 17th century, but not engineered or built (or if so, could only be approximated at prohibitive expense).

This is, of course, overlooking the evolution in aesthetic styles and preferences, but we're concerned with technology for this discussion.

Also there are many elements of shape that are dictated by evolving understanding of technical/scientific knowledge, and thus could not be anticipated as technical advancement, but to an artist/audience thinking/understanding these simply in terms of "cool shapes", this is a wash. A lot of sci-fi art revolves around "cool shapes" that are meant to represent this sort of technical evolution, with it being implicit that truly anticipating such is impossible.

As time marches on, manufacturing advances as well as any other part of technology. Forms that were too complex or expensive to make become feasible, then commonplace. You can see this in everything, from airplanes to kitchen appliances. You can also see it by looking at it backward: by looking at modern "steampunk" and "dieselpunk" artistic renditions of modern technologies, and by looking at actual period sci-fi art that anticipates modern (or still future) technologies with what now looks like whimsically outdated construction.

"Hard sci-fi" in particular tends to very conservative in its estimates. Too conservative, often, to the point where the future is essentially populated by new applications (or lateral applications) of very modern technology. Sometimes "cutting edge" modern, but yesterday's cutting edge is today's old, and today's cutting edge is yesterdays unthinkable/implausible, so today's cutting edge isn't actually futuristic. In visual arts, this takes the form of technology that does futuristic things, but stylistically looks like something that could have came off a modern assembly line, using modern materials and techniques. This is where stuff like James Cameron films and The Expanse reside, stylistically. To the general public, this visual style is the sole marker of what makes something "realistic" ( to a large amount of people, the only difference between a smart phone and something out of Harry Potter is that one is real and the other isn't, so to these people "realism" is ENTIRELY cosmetic), and therefore is the sole definition of "hard sci-fi". You end up with a lot of visual media sci-fi that is actually completely space-opera, but gets credited as "realistic" just because it uses this visual style in a purely cosmetic way.

Visual hard S-F's definition of "realism" unconsciously positions "realistic" and "futuristic" in contradiction to each other, causing the style to bottom out in an "always preparing for the last war instead of the next one" paradox.

Spacecraft in particular have an added layer of irony, in that their reference for "hardness" tends to be NASA hardware, which is essentially built using prototyping methods rather than mass manufacturing methods. Most IRL space hardware looks more like one-off proof-of-concept lab builds than full production technology to begin with, so the ironic not-futurism of emulating that look goes an extra layer deep. Check out the difference between modern a NASA cockpit (wait... are there any?) and a Space-X cockpit, and realize that the Space-X stuff is only prototype-level too, but is being designed from a prospective full consumer product standpoint.

BUT WAIT: that's not the best part. Manufacturing technology is currently rolling up toward a kind of second industrial revolution with the rise and expansion of 3D-printing and other CNC technologies. We're starting to see the first trickles of what 50 years from now will be factories that change tooling simply by swapping out a CAD file, and repair shops that print replacement parts on site rather than having them shipped from a factory. A future in which the economy of off-the-shelf engineering will eventually be reversed in many applications. That means organically complex shapes that are currently impossible and/or prohibitive to manufacture, combined with an increase in bespoke components designed and built for a specific role in a specific design.

BUT WAIT AGAIN: that's STILL not the best part! You know about computer-aided engineering software that lets you do physical testing and prototype iteration entirely in the computer, and how that's all industry standard tech now? Well, the next level in that tech tree is coming: design software that "creatively" extrapolates the most optimal design for a given set of parameters all by itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5JLiv2bPXA

Pretty huge all by itself, but just imagine what people could (and will) do applying that in nested, recursive workflow trees.

So you've got an upcoming new class of engineering software that will destroy modified primitive solid derived forms in direct proportion to our ability to manufacture complex shapes... combined with rising classes of fabrication technologies to manufacture said shapes. Even with a conservative estimate of theses technologies' impact, the actual hardware of a full century from now is probably gonna look way more bio-mechanoid (for lack of a better term) than anything modern "hard S-F" visual arts/media is comfortable with.

Some things will be consistent: rooms, furniture, and containers will still favor right angles because they tessellate most efficiently. In some cases, new technologies will actually lead to right angles being more common as limitations that preclude right angles are reduced. Like the interiors of ships (ocean or space), for example (which means the sci-fi trope of hex or octagonal halls and doors is probably also ironic). But a lot of stuff is going to get a lot more organic and and fluidly integrated in terms of shape and parts breakdown, because the design and manufacturing barriers that have always made that impractical/impossible are being disassembled right now.

To be honest, a lot of the visual design in The Expanse is pretty boxy and primitive even by modern hard S-F standards. I love the amount of production value on display, but to me it overshoots even the IMO inaccurate standards of modern visual hard Sci-Fi, and lands more or less in "future Steampunk" territory. It's like Firefly without the overt cowboy stuff.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Certainly, technology will allow new designs, but which of the numerous possible athstetics you actually get will depend heavily on both culture and function. So while technology is definitely a factor, I'd think that perhaps more pertinent questions to narrow down the visual style you want are "What function does it serve" and "what sort of culture designed it".

Look at Star Wars-

The warships of the Galactic Empire are, in some senses at least, more "advanced" than the sleek Naboo yachts of the Prequels. Certainly larger, more powerful, and more complex machines, and of a later and more militarized era. And yet, they tend toward angular shapes and drab colouring. They're utilitarian vessels, and to the extent that appearance is a factor, they are designed to intimidate.

The Naboo yacht, in contrast, is a luxury craft from a more peaceful culture which likely invests more in beauty and peacetime pursuits, and is in any case intended for a very different role from an ISD or a Death Star.

A similar contrast can be found between, say Federation ships and Klingon or (especially) Borg ships in Star Trek.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Certainly, technology will allow new designs, but which of the numerous possible athstetics you actually get will depend heavily on both culture and function. So while technology is definitely a factor, I'd think that perhaps more pertinent questions to narrow down the visual style you want are "What function does it serve" and "what sort of culture designed it".

Look at Star Wars-

The warships of the Galactic Empire are, in some senses at least, more "advanced" than the sleek Naboo yachts of the Prequels. Certainly larger, more powerful, and more complex machines, and of a later and more militarized era. And yet, they tend toward angular shapes and drab colouring. They're utilitarian vessels, and to the extent that appearance is a factor, they are designed to intimidate.

The Naboo yacht, in contrast, is a luxury craft from a more peaceful culture which likely invests more in beauty and peacetime pursuits, and is in any case intended for a very different role from an ISD or a Death Star.

A similar contrast can be found between, say Federation ships and Klingon or (especially) Borg ships in Star Trek.

MadAmosMalone wrote:I seem to recall reading once in an Arthur C. Clarke book that smooth control surfaces were fine for "unimportant" systems like informational displays or food service but that designers retained using switches and toggles and other more traditional apparatus for systems such as powerplants and weapons because there was something satisfying about hearing or feeling a tangible "click" when operating those. I forget exactly how he worded it but it made sense that people wouldn't want to set off a weapon system by accidentally brushing it with their hand.

Form should follow function. Particularly when it comes to electronics, most science fiction tries to extrapolate advances in miniaturization and capability from current trends but neglects to take into consideration how electronic equipment needs to be "hardened" for the environment of space. So maybe the tech of the future might not be too different from "less advanced" depictions of the past.