Are you a spatial savant?

[Tsakali]

that would defeat the purpose of the spatial awareness part

[mjrpes]

Instructions didn't explicitly say to only use your head. Obvious... but you know what happens when you assume...

[mjrpes]

Another question...

Did you all attempt to solve it by visualizing a cube in 3D? Or did you manipulate the layout in 2D with rotation rules?

[Tsakali]

from wiki: "Spatial visualization ability or visual-spatial ability is the ability to mentally manipulate 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional figures."
-so I guess 'they' assume you understand what 'Spatial Ability' stands for.

Also, don't know how anyone else approached it but read my previous post, it explains how I did it.

[obsidian]

No pen/paper, entirely in my head. For the most part, I just did face rotations and pattern recognition to determine the odd one out. For pattern recognition, I start with something like a heart or arrow, which has directional information and try to work out if the adjacent faces have the same figures.

In 3D work, you're constantly required to do UVW-wrapping, which involves taking a 3D model of far greater complexity and trying to unwrapping it into a 2D plane with which you can paint textures on. Like this for example:

[mjrpes]

k... got 9/9

gave up doing any 3D in my head. 3D manipulation is well beyond my means.

once i figured out the rules of 2D rotation/manipulation and used arrow/triangle as base alignment guides it was straightforward.

by the end my mind was getting comfortable with 2D manipulation and it was pretty quick doing double checks.

i can now see how peeps like obsidian who do this stuff a lot with modeling can get very good at it.

[mjrpes]

obsidian... do you do this stuff for a living or is it a serious hobby?

[obsidian]

Both, I guess.

[Transient]

In 3D work, you're constantly required to do UVW-wrapping, which involves taking a 3D model of far greater complexity and trying to unwrapping it into a 2D plane with which you can paint textures on. Like this for example:

[img]

Do they make programs that allow you to paint straight onto the 3D model without unwrapping first, or would that just make it harder?

[phantasmagoria]

Do they make programs that allow you to paint straight onto the 3D model without unwrapping first, or would that just make it harder?

yeah, zbrush is brilliant for this.

[obsidian]

zBrush does high detail surface sculpting and translates it to normalmaps, and it still requires UV coordinates. So yeah, it's kind of like painting on the surface, but it still requires the model to be unwrapped to a 2D texture.

Do they make programs that allow you to paint straight onto the 3D model without unwrapping first, or would that just make it harder?

Most 3D apps have some method that allows you to paint directly on the model, but those pixels still need to be stored in some kind of format. That will almost always be a 2D texture of some sort, and as long as that is true, then you still need to unwrap the model first. You can think of the surface of the model as a pelt or wrapping paper that you paint on, but you need to peel it off of the model in such a way that minimizes both wasted space between edges (to reduce the texture's dimensions and file size) and distortions caused by stretching a 3D shape into a 2D plane. The only advantage painting directly on a model gives you is that it makes it easier to paint on the seams, so that details match up.

The only way that I'm aware of in which you can theoretically paint directly on a model without unwrapping would be if you were working with voxels, but that's not realistically in anyone's toolchain. There is no current commercial application involving the use of voxels as that opens up a whole slew of other technical challenges, some of which are going to be even larger headaches.

[Pext]

9/9 pretty easy; but then again, i'm also pretty smart

[Ryoki]

I took a 10 second look at two of the figures at question 1 and promptly gave up

[Underpants?]

in less than the 10 minute break I have each day for fuckoff time, I got the first two.... y'all really are some pretty bright dudes, though-this requires some imagination and serious IQ

[ToxicBug]

in less than the 10 minute break I have each day for fuckoff time, I got the first two.... y'all really are some pretty bright dudes, though-this requires some imagination and serious IQ

IMO, not really since there's no time limit. I had trouble with #6 and #9, my score was 8/9. I wish it specified which one you got wrong.

[plained]

this is the sort of thing that one should invest some time in

imo everybody's capable, but the speed it develops in each individual varies

probbly?

[Tsakali]

some say that speed is what iq is all about. without speed, all those scattered synapses that take place in your head miss the opportunity to manifest that 'eureka' moment..to make that critical connection between them.

Think of it as a juggling act... the faster you can manipulate the balls, the more of them you can keep in the air. Sure, some problems are simple enough not to require too intricate of a juggling act...but as the stakes raise , so do the amount of balls you have to keep in check. SO although there are many problems that can be completed at slower or faster pace alike, the more complicated ones require that raw skill of superior juggling ability.

[losCHUNK]

[lvlshot]http://24.media.tumblr.com/fafba8223db3be709eed3dde2698329b/tumblr_mk9efgRrX11r0ftodo1_250.gif[/lvlshot]

[obsidian]

[losCHUNK]

I actually seen something not long back that said vision is the trick and commented on how Einstein would often say he would see his ideas with his imagination, this part of his brain was highly developed when it was examined after he snuffed it n all.

Said that a lot of other boffins created their theories in a similiar way, Newton with falling apples and imagining what would happen if you fired a cannonball at a similiar rate to the ground falling away - orbit. Arcimedies eureka moment was triggered by a visual displacement of the water and knew exactly what this meant

[Ryoki]

The ability to weigh cons and benefits of any given task is one of the clearest signs of intellect - therefore mjrpes and myself are clearly superior creatures for concluding the test was not even worth bothering with. We win guys, sorry.

[MKJ]

that would actually fall under the category 'wisdom'.

[Ryoki]

Pfft, a non scientific pseudo religious category of intelligence... for there can be no wisdom without intelligence, whereas there can be intelligence without wisdom. See the cunning crow for example, this creature demonstrates extraordinary intelligence for it's brain size in tests, but you wouldn't go ask one for advise would you.

So i'm afraid we still win.

[MKJ]

advice.

[Ryoki]

Yes... that stuff.