Here are some other awesome things made with it:
And in general I recommend following Sir Carma for inspiration: https://twitter.com/Sir_carma
It's a crowdfunded game. Here's a walkthrough . It's absolutely amazing. Watching it, I was on the edge of my seat for 20 minutes. The walkthrough's gameplay is a nightime rally chase in the country. The driver is good, by the way. To those who won't watch it through and through, at the very end, he goes to the hydroplant and turns on the roadside lights. The visuals are like nothing I've seen.
I'm not an easily excitable person, and I don't usually throw hyporboles around, but, in my eyes, this is something very unique.
Did you do any post-processing on the models from MagicaVoxel before using the models in your game? E.g. does MagicaVoxel export a single optimised mesh, or does it export a load of cube meshes?
I had some trouble importing directly into Unity 2019, this is what I did for anyone else wondering:
- Export as OBJ in MagicaPixel
- Import Obj & Png into Unity via drag-n-drop
- In the prefab that is generated, on the model tab change the imported model's scale factor to 0.1 and hit apply.
- In the prefab that is generated, on the material tab click extract materials and save in same folder.
- Drag the Png texture you imported into the Albedo of the extracted texture.
You now have the textured MagicaVoxel model in Unity for whatever you want to do with it. Yay.
I've also heard that this asset might be useful, but I haven't tried it yet: https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/modeling/magicav...
* Who's https://twitter.com/ephtracy? Why did you create this? How are you using it this days? Are you making any games with this?
* How do you produce images like this?  Is the Ray Tracer to do that built in or do you have to import the models in a second software?
* What kind of support is there for the vox file format? (where/how to render outside the app).
Unknown, they appear to like their privacy.
> Why did you create this? How are you using it this days?
> Are you making any games with this?
"the project is also used as my personal research platform, so it contains codes for unpublished features and from other private projects." 
> Is the Ray Tracer to do that built in or do you have to import the models in a second software?
It has a built in renderer, or you can export to other tools (e.g. Unity3D) if you want more control of rendering or to be able to rotate/deform the models. I see Export options for: obj, ply, mc, xraw, slab, qb, vox, iso and 2d.
"ephtracy/stb forked from nothings/stb"
Sean T. Barrett is @nothings on twitter per the twitter link on https://nothings.org/
Obviously it's not meant to be taken literally.
You might as well complain that "modernism" isn't modern anymore or that "gothic" novels aren't from the same time period of gothic architecture... or that roman typefaces come from places other than Rome, or that italic typefaces aren't all from Italy.
I learned not to in front of people, but honestly, this is a problem - a problem of people introducing bad names, and then no one correcting them even decades later.
In that sense, we could also say that Minecraft has voxel graphics, since a lot of people seem to think so. It looks blocky, so it must be voxels.
I wonder which "voxel"-engine Minecraft runs on ;p
Think of it as a label like "modern art", which is art from 1860s to the 1970s.
> A free lightweight 8-bit voxel art editor and interactive path tracing renderer.
Is the sentence in some way more clear with the modifier '8-bit'? What's being clarified?
This would be a very poor tool for creating audio, and anyone looking for an audio tool would notice this immediately.
"8-bit voxel" is completely understood to the target audience. Anything involving audio would not.
A few things I've made with it:
Follow the developer for a lot of awesome and inspiring examples:
Also I've made a little collection of my favorite artworks:
Gives you a good idea of what the app can do as well as how voxel modelling is different from traditional polygonal modeling like in Blender.
I understand the reasons, but it's always disappointing to see a project on GitHub that doesn't actually plan on releasing source code.
GitHub is among other things a platform for sharing.
Sharing should not be obligatory.
When someone shares something, if you like it, be grateful, and if you don't, just move along.
If you want to know how it's done just go and read some open source voxel library - there are ton's of them. If you are interested on the path rendering part there's lots of awesome didactic resources for that as well.
If you don't trust the author and are afraid that the code does something nasty - just don't use it.
If the author feels he is not contributing - or not willing to contribute - to the state of the art in voxel techniques or path rendering (both of which are totally fine stances) then there really is no value in showing the source.
If someone creates a free tool for making art, their contribution should be cherished, and their tool used for art, and appreciated for it's artistic merits. Don't give shit for the author for releasing the free tool on his own conditions. If you don't like those, move along. Or, if you are inspired, go make your own and open source it!
By the way, that discussion is just horrible. The author lays open the reasons why he does not want to release it and the other party just disagrees. "We could help you with the patches... I would like to read the code that I run".. Oh really? I wonder if he really has read through the entire codebase of the operating system and all of the drivers and all of the programs he runs.
"Helping out with the patches" without adult supervision can lead to this:
I totally understand why the author would not like to nanny the internet's eager contributors. An open source project needs a huge cultural effort to collect and
coordinate technically savvy key contributors before it can work. That won't happen automatically. Not everybody yearns to be a benevolent dictator for life of this or that.
I think you're viewing it from the "expectations" side, while binarycrusader, pawelmurias, and I are viewing it from the "hope" side.
If this were open source under a license that makes sense to us, I think all three of us were thinking we'd like to use the code to do other things. That's just a hope.
Sure, the binary is public, but that does not imply that the author has the codebase in any shape that would be legible or maintainable by anyone but him.
Sometimes projects grow so complex that only the original author can understand it. And there are lot of examples of projects that grew too complex even for their maintainers to understand.
What I'm getting at is this: making a code public does not make it usable, and cleaning up a research/hobby codebase so it's legible can be quite an effort, and not always possible.
Hence I find it odd to yearn for something you have no idea if it's worth yearning for. Unless one is an afficionado of masochism there are usually much more rewarding things to do than deobfuscate code someone else wrote.
Edit: in a recent update it added support for 1024 x 1024 scenes.