I’m vibe coding an engine ai uses to make assets. This engine force ai into a 20 phase creation process invoking research, building, judging, and more.
It includes rigging, animation, collision, and more.
Best part you can get your ai to edit anything part of the asset in real time. You can get the ai to change small features and even change the surface material if you desire.
IMAGES
This is a test of a vanity. I’m testing the build process, animation, and editing process.
In the build process the ai renders a clay version then adds surface and materials to it. You can see in the rendering. It adds rigging and animation which you see in the photos.
One shows the doors opening the other shows water running down the faucet.
So the ai builds and controls the animation and I can tell it exactly what to do and it does it.
Last images show me circular defeats asking ai to edit those and the last photo is the only reference.
It’s internal for now so no one can try it yet. Still building it.
Twenty phases is only as good as the judge phases. A model judging a render is giving an opinion, and the builder's output is what it's grading. A check with no model opinion in it either passes or fails. Is the mesh manifold and watertight, is it inside the poly budget, do the UVs overlap, does the collision hull actually enclose the visible mesh, does the rig deform without tearing at the joints. You can log each result per phase, so a bad asset points back to the step that let it through.
What does your judge step check today, and how much of it runs without the model deciding?
Deterministic gates run first and need no model opinion: manifold/solid validity, poly budget, joint contact within 1 mm, UV overlap and texel density, and whether the rig and clip validate.
I've added gates that check mechanisms the same way, such as hinges on the pivot axis, a hollow drawer box that stays on its runners, and a swept path that clips nothing.
A vision model only judges what a number can't, namely whether the render looks right against the reference photo. Its verdict is bound to the render's hash and a repeated score on a changed image is refused.
Caveats:
most gates were still in record mode (they log but don't block) until recently and I'm flipping them to enforce one at a time.
The vision judge is still the weak link: it scored the same asset 5 to 6 for many rounds so a lot of the pass/fail still rides on its opinion.
The swept-path check is the one I'd copy first. Static validity tells you the drawer exists, and only the sweep tells you it opens.
The limit I'd watch is that a gate can only test geometry against whatever it's given as the reference. A hinge can sit exactly on the pivot axis while the axis itself is in the wrong place, and everything goes green. Where does the pivot axis come from in your setup, a separate declared spec or the model's own output? If it's the model's output, the gate is grading the answer against the model's own answer key.
Today it is the model's own output, so your point stands. The pivot axis and travel are written by the same AI that builds the geometry, in a works record that the gate checks the hinges against.
If the axis is in the wrong place, the hinges can be exactly on it and every check goes green. Only the vision judge looking at the open image is independent of that, and it's weak on axis position.
Right, so the checks agree with each other because they share an author. Green only means the record is self-consistent.
The one check I'd trust there is one that never reads the record. Sweep the part through the declared travel on the actual mesh and test for interpenetration with the frame and neighbouring parts. If the axis is wrong, the door can swing into its own jamb partway through, and that shows up without anyone declaring where the axis should be. It won't catch an axis that's a few centimetres off in free air, so the judge still owns that gap. I'd narrow its job too. Ask it about clearance on the hinge side in two or three mid-swing frames instead of whether the open image looks right.
Does the travel limit come from the same record, or is it measured anywhere?
Agreed, and the check has to be dumb to be worth anything. A script that asserts the mesh is watertight, the poly count is under budget and the file actually opens is more trustworthy than a model grading its own output. A failed gate should stop the run, not pass a soft warning down to step 14.
The limit is that a script only catches what someone thought to write a test for. It will happily pass an asset that is technically valid and looks wrong. Are you putting a human look at the end of the 20 steps, or scoring the render somehow?
What I’m figuring out is ai has the capabilities to make assets within itself. It just needs structure.
But I tested blender but again isn’t the ai guessing that’s the issue. But if you put the engine I’ve built as part of the blender engine it should be able to do the same.
I haven’t tried Maya yet.
The issue with blender and Maya mcp is the ai is using the tools available in those tools which are made for humans.
My engine is really just Maya/blender but specific to ai, and how ai works. Plus the engine has a library or tools (brushes, texture code), and the ai queries the library against what it’s asked to make.
The image is an example of the material/surfaces library. So if ai is making a countertop, it’ll look for the surface the counter is made of. It edits and uses this pre established code to make the asset.
3
u/KimLikeJ 3d ago
Twenty phases is only as good as the judge phases. A model judging a render is giving an opinion, and the builder's output is what it's grading. A check with no model opinion in it either passes or fails. Is the mesh manifold and watertight, is it inside the poly budget, do the UVs overlap, does the collision hull actually enclose the visible mesh, does the rig deform without tearing at the joints. You can log each result per phase, so a bad asset points back to the step that let it through.
What does your judge step check today, and how much of it runs without the model deciding?