By TREVOR HOGG Images courtesy of Prime Video. For those seeking an alternative to the MCU, Prime Video has two offerings of the live-action and animated variety that take the superhero genre into R-rated territory where the hands of the god-like figures get dirty, bloodied and severed. “The Boys is about the intersection of celebrity and politics using superheroes,” states Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor on The Boys. “Sometimes I see the news and I don’t even know we can write to catch up to it! But we try. Invincible is an intense look at an alternate DC Universe that has more grit to the superhero side of it all. On one hand, I was jealous watching Season 1 of Invincible because in animation you can do things that you can’t do in real life on a budget.” Season 4 does not tone down the blood, gore and body count. Fleet notes, “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” When Splinter (Rob Benedict) splits in two, the cloning effect was inspired by cellular mitosis. “The writers almost have this dialogue with us. Sometimes, they’ll write in the script, ‘And Fleet will come up with a cool visual effect for how to kill this person.’ Or, ‘Chhiu, our fight coordinator, will make an awesome fight.’ It is a frequent topic of conversation. We’re constantly trying to be inventive and create new ways to kill people!” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor A total of 1,600 visual effects shots were created for the eight episodes by ILM, Pixomondo, MPC Toronto, Spin VFX, DNEG, Untold Studios, Luma Pictures and Rocket Science VFX. Previs was a critical part of the process. “We have John Griffith [Previs Director], who owns a small company called CNCPT out of Texas, and he does wonderful Unreal Engine level previs,” Fleet remarks. “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” Founding Director of Federal Bureau of Superhuman Affairs, Victoria Neuman, literally gets ripped in half by two tendrils coming out of Compound V-enhanced Billy Butcher, the leader of superhero resistance group The Boys. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” Multiple plates were shot to enable Simon Pegg to phase through the actor laying in a hospital bed. Testing can get rather elaborate. “For that end scene with Butcher’s tendrils, the room was two stories, and we were able to put the camera up high along with a bunch of blood cannons,” Fleet recalls. “When the body rips in half and explodes, there is a practical component. We rained down a bunch of real blood and guts right in front of Huey. It’s a known joke that we like to douse Jack Quaid with blood as much as possible! In this case, the special effects team led by Hudson Kenny needed to test it the day before, and I said, “I’ll be the guinea pig for the test.’ They covered the whole place with plastic like it was a Dexter kill room because you don’t want to destroy the set. I’m standing there in a white hazmat suit with goggles on, covered from head to toe in plastic and waiting as they’re tweaking all of these things. It sounds like World War II going on. They’re on walkie talkies to each other, and then all of a sudden, it’s ‘Five, four, three, two, one…’  And I get exploded with blood. I wanted to see what it was like, and it’s intense.” “On set, we have a cartoon of what is going to be done, and you’ll be amazed, specifically for action and heavy visual effects stuff, how close those shots are to the previs when we finish.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor The Deep has a love affair with an octopus called Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton. “It’s implied bestiality!” Fleet laughs. “I would call it more of a romance. What was fun from my perspective is that I knew what the look was going to be [from Season 3], so then it’s about putting in the details and the animation. One of the instincts that you always have when you’re making a sea creature that talks to a human [is] you tend to want to give it human gestures and eyebrows. Erik Kripke [Creator, Executive Producer, Showrunner, Director, Writer] said, ‘No. We have to find things that an octopus could do that conveys the same emotion.’ That’s when ideas came in, such as putting a little The Deep toy inside the water tank. When Ambrosius is trying to have an intimate moment or connect with him, she can wrap a tentacle around that. My favorite experience doing Ambrosius was when The Deep is reading poetry to her on a bed. CG creatures touching humans is one of the more complicated things to do and make look real. Ambrosius’ tentacles reach for his arm, and it becomes an intimate moment. More than touching the skin, displacing the bedsheet as Ambrosius moved ended up becoming a lot of CG, and we had to go back and forth a few times to get that looking right; that turned out to be tricky.” A building is replaced by a massive crowd attending a rally being held by Homelander. In a twisted form of sexual foreplay, Sister Sage has The Deep perform a transorbital lobotomy on her. “Thank you, Amazon for selling lobotomy tools as novelty items!” Fleet chuckles. “We filmed it with a lobotomy tool on set. There is a lot of safety involved in doing something like that. Obviously, you don’t want to put any performer in any situation where they come close to putting anything real near their eye. We created this half lobotomy tool and did this complicated split screen with the lobotomy tool on a teeter totter. The Deep was [acting in a certain way] in one shot and Sister Sage reacted in the other shot. To marry the two ended up being a lot of CG work. Then there are these close-ups which are full CG. I always keep a dummy head that is painted gray that I use all of the time for reference. In macrophotography I filmed this lobotomy tool going right into the eye area. I did that because the tool is chrome, so it’s reflective and has ridges. It has an interesting reflective property. I was able to see how and what part of the human eye reflects onto the tool. A lot of that shot became about realistic reflections and lighting on the tool. Then heavy CG for displacing the eye and pushing the lobotomy tool into it. That was one of the more complicated sequences that we had to achieve.” In order to create an intimate moment between Ambrosius and The Deep, a toy version of the superhero was placed inside of the water tank that she could wrap a tentacle around. “The word that we like to use on this show is ‘grounded,’ and I like to say ‘grounded’ with an asterisk in this day and age because we’re grounded until we get to killing people in the craziest ways. In this case, having someone floating in the air and being ripped in half by two tendrils was all CG.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Sheep and chickens embark on a violent rampage courtesy of Compound V with the latter piercing the chest of a bodyguard belonging to Victoria Neuman. “Weirdly, that was one of our more traditional shots,’ Fleet states. “What is fun about that one is I asked for real chickens as reference. The chicken flying through his chest is real. It’s our chicken wrangler in green suit gently tossing a chicken. We blended two real plates together with some CG in the middle.” A connection was made with a sci-fi classic. “The sheep kill this bull, and we shot it is in this narrow corridor of fencing. When they run, I always equated it as the Trench Run in Star Wars and looked at the sheep as TIE fighters or X-wings coming at them.” The scene was one of the scarier moments for the visual effects team. Fleet explains, “When I read the script, I thought this could be the moment where we jump the shark. For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” The sheep injected with Compound V develop the ability to fly and were shot in an imperfect manner to help ground the scenes. Once injected with Compound V, Hugh Campbell Sr. (Simon Pegg) develops the ability to phase through objects, including human beings. “We called it the Bro-nut because his name in the script is Wall Street Bro,” Fleet notes. “That was a complicated motion control shot, repeating the move over and over again. We had to shoot multiple plates of Simon Pegg and the guy in the bed. Special effects and prosthetics created a dummy guy with a hole in his chest with practical blood dripping down. It was meshing it together and getting the timing right in post. On top of that, there was the CG blood immediately around Simon Pegg.” The phasing effect had to avoid appearing as a dissolve. “I had this idea of doing high-frequency vibration on the X axis loosely based on how The Flash vibrates through walls. You want everything to have a loose motivation that then helps trigger the visuals. We tried not to overcomplicate that because, ultimately, you want something like that to be quick. If you spend too much time on phasing, it can look cheesy. In our case, it was a lot of false walls. Simon Pegg is running into a greenscreen hole which we plug in with a wall or coming out of one. I went off the actor’s action, and we added a light opacity mix with some X-axis shake.” Providing a different twist to the fights was the replacement of spurting blood with photoreal rubber duckies during a drug-induced hallucination. Homelander (Anthony Starr) breaks a mirror which emphasizes his multiple personality disorder. “The original plan was that special effects was going to pre-break a mirror, and we were going to shoot Anthony Starr moving his head doing all of the performances in the different parts of the mirror,” Fleet reveals. “This was all based on a photo that my ex-brother-in-law sent me. He was walking down a street in Glendale, California, came across a broken mirror that someone had thrown out, and took a photo of himself where he had five heads in the mirror. We get there on the day, and I’m realizing that this is really complicated. Anthony has to do these five different performances, and we have to deal with infinite mirrors. At the last minute, I said, ‘We have to do this on a clean mirror.’ We did it on a clear mirror and gave Anthony different eyelines. The mirror break was all done in post, and we were able to cheat his head slightly and art-direct where the break crosses his chin. Editorial was able to do split screens for the timing of the dialogue.” “For the shots where the sheep are still and scream to the camera, Untold Studios did a bunch of R&D and came up with baboon teeth. I tried to keep anything real as much as possible, but, obviously, when sheep are flying, they have to be CG. I call it the Battlestar Galactica theory, where I like to shake the camera, overshoot shots and make it sloppy when they’re in the air so you can add motion blur. Comedy also helps sell visual effects.” —Stephan Fleet, VFX Supervisor Initially, the plan was to use a practical mirror, but creating a digital version proved to be the more effective solution. A different spin on the bloodbath occurs during a fight when a drugged Frenchie (Tomer Capone) hallucinates as Kimiko Miyashiro (Karen Fukuhara) goes on a killing spree. “We went back and forth with a lot of different concepts for what this hallucination would be,” Fleet remarks. “When we filmed it, we landed on Frenchie having a synesthesia moment where he’s seeing a lot of abstract colors flying in the air. We started getting into that in post and it wasn’t working. We went back to the rubber duckies, which goes back to the story of him in the bathtub. What’s in the bathtub? Rubber duckies, bubbles and water. There was a lot of physics and logic required to figure out how these rubber duckies could float out of someone’s neck. We decided on bubbles when Kimiko hits people’s heads. At one point, we had water when she got shot, but it wasn’t working, so we killed it. We probably did about 100 different versions. We got really detailed with our rubber duckie modeling because we didn’t want it to look cartoony. That took a long time.” Ambrosius, voiced by Tilda Swinton, gets a lot more screentime in Season 4. When Splinter (Rob Benedict) splits in two was achieved heavily in CG. “Erik threw out the words ‘cellular mitosis’ early on as something he wanted to use,” Fleet states. “We shot Rob Benedict on a greenscreen doing all of the different performances for the clones that pop out. It was a crazy amount of CG work with Houdini and particle and skin effects. We previs’d the sequence so we had specific actions. One clone comes out to the right and the other pulls backwards.” What tends to go unnoticed by many is Splinter’s clones setting up for a press conference being held by Firecracker (Valorie Curry). “It’s funny how no one brings up the 22-hour motion control shot that we had to do with Splinter on the stage, which was the most complicated shot!” Fleet observes. “We have this sweeping long shot that brings you into the room and follows Splinter as he carries a container to the stage and hands it off to a clone, and then you reveal five more of them interweaving each other and interacting with all of these objects. It’s like a minute-long dance. First off, you have to choreograph it. We previs’d it, but then you need to get people to do it. We hired dancers and put different colored armbands on them. The camera is like another performer, and a metronome is going, which enables you to find a pace. That took about eight hours of rehearsal. Then Rob has to watch each one of their performances and mimic it to the beat. When he is handing off a box of cables, it’s to a double who is going to have to be erased and be him on the other side. They have to be almost perfect in their timing and lineup in order to take it over in visual effects and make it work.”

Parece que la inteligencia artificial ha vuelto a demostrar su eficacia en el sector de la impresión 3D, concretamente en la fase de diseño. Un equipo ha utilizado la IA para desarrollar un generador de modelos 3D capaz de sintetizar…

'This new phase allows me to focus on strategic initiatives, M&A, and capital allocation.'

Six top manga artists reveal the secrets behind their success

Enterprise artificial intelligence investment is unprecedented, with IDC projecting global spending on AI and GenAI to double to $631 billion by 2028. Yet beneath the impressive budget allocations and boardroom enthusiasm lies a troubling reality: most organisations struggle to translate their AI ambitions into operational success.The sobering statistics behind AI’s promiseModelOp’s 2025 AI Governance Benchmark Report, based on input from 100 senior AI and data leaders at Fortune 500 enterprises, reveals a disconnect between aspiration and execution.While more than 80% of enterprises have 51 or more generative AI projects in proposal phases, only 18% have successfully deployed more than 20 models into production.The execution gap represents one of the most significant challenges facing enterprise AI today. Most generative AI projects still require 6 to 18 months to go live – if they reach production at all.The result is delayed returns on investment, frustrated stakeholders, and diminished confidence in AI initiatives in the enterprise.The cause: Structural, not technical barriersThe biggest obstacles preventing AI scalability aren’t technical limitations – they’re structural inefficiencies plaguing enterprise operations. The ModelOp benchmark report identifies several problems that create what experts call a “time-to-market quagmire.”Fragmented systems plague implementation. 58% of organisations cite fragmented systems as the top obstacle to adopting governance platforms. Fragmentation creates silos where different departments use incompatible tools and processes, making it nearly impossible to maintain consistent oversight in AI initiatives.Manual processes dominate despite digital transformation. 55% of enterprises still rely on manual processes – including spreadsheets and email – to manage AI use case intake. The reliance on antiquated methods creates bottlenecks, increases the likelihood of errors, and makes it difficult to scale AI operations.Lack of standardisation hampers progress. Only 23% of organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model management processes. Without these elements, each AI project becomes a unique challenge requiring custom solutions and extensive coordination by multiple teams.Enterprise-level oversight remains rare Just 14% of companies perform AI assurance at the enterprise level, increasing the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent oversight. The lack of centralised governance means organisations often discover they’re solving the same problems multiple times in different departments.The governance revolution: From obstacle to acceleratorA change is taking place in how enterprises view AI governance. Rather than seeing it as a compliance burden that slows innovation, forward-thinking organisations recognise governance as an important enabler of scale and speed.Leadership alignment signals strategic shift. The ModelOp benchmark data reveals a change in organisational structure: 46% of companies now assign accountability for AI governance to a Chief Innovation Officer – more than four times the number who place accountability under Legal or Compliance. This strategic repositioning reflects a new understanding that governance isn’t solely about risk management, but can enable innovation.Investment follows strategic priority. A financial commitment to AI governance underscores its importance. According to the report, 36% of enterprises have budgeted at least $1 million annually for AI governance software, while 54% have allocated resources specifically for AI Portfolio Intelligence to track value and ROI.What high-performing organisations do differentlyThe enterprises that successfully bridge the ‘execution gap’ share several characteristics in their approach to AI implementation:Standardised processes from day one. Leading organisations implement standardised intake, development, and model review processes in AI initiatives. Consistency eliminates the need to reinvent workflows for each project and ensures that all stakeholders understand their responsibilities.Centralised documentation and inventory. Rather than allowing AI assets to proliferate in disconnected systems, successful enterprises maintain centralised inventories that provide visibility into every model’s status, performance, and compliance posture.Automated governance checkpoints. High-performing organisations embed automated governance checkpoints throughout the AI lifecycle, helping ensure compliance requirements and risk assessments are addressed systematically rather than as afterthoughts.End-to-end traceability. Leading enterprises maintain complete traceability of their AI models, including data sources, training methods, validation results, and performance metrics.Measurable impact of structured governanceThe benefits of implementing comprehensive AI governance extend beyond compliance. Organisations that adopt lifecycle automation platforms reportedly see dramatic improvements in operational efficiency and business outcomes.A financial services firm profiled in the ModelOp report experienced a halving of time to production and an 80% reduction in issue resolution time after implementing automated governance processes. Such improvements translate directly into faster time-to-value and increased confidence among business stakeholders.Enterprises with robust governance frameworks report the ability to many times more models simultaneously while maintaining oversight and control. This scalability lets organisations pursue AI initiatives in multiple business units without overwhelming their operational capabilities.The path forward: From stuck to scaledThe message from industry leaders that the gap between AI ambition and execution is solvable, but it requires a shift in approach. Rather than treating governance as a necessary evil, enterprises should realise it enables AI innovation at scale.Immediate action items for AI leadersOrganisations looking to escape the ‘time-to-market quagmire’ should prioritise the following:Audit current state: Conduct an assessment of existing AI initiatives, identifying fragmented processes and manual bottlenecksStandardise workflows: Implement consistent processes for AI use case intake, development, and deployment in all business unitsInvest in integration: Deploy platforms to unify disparate tools and systems under a single governance frameworkEstablish enterprise oversight: Create centralised visibility into all AI initiatives with real-time monitoring and reporting abilitiesThe competitive advantage of getting it rightOrganisations that can solve the execution challenge will be able to bring AI solutions to market faster, scale more efficiently, and maintain the trust of stakeholders and regulators.Enterprises that continue with fragmented processes and manual workflows will find themselves disadvantaged compared to their more organised competitors. Operational excellence isn’t about efficiency but survival.The data shows enterprise AI investment will continue to grow. Therefore, the question isn’t whether organisations will invest in AI, but whether they’ll develop the operational abilities necessary to realise return on investment. The opportunity to lead in the AI-driven economy has never been greater for those willing to embrace governance as an enabler not an obstacle.(Image source: Unsplash)

Researchers unexpectedly discovered toxic airborne pollutants in Oklahoma. The image above depicts a field in Oklahoma. Credit: Shutterstock University of Colorado Boulder researchers made the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs) in the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes, scientific research feels a lot like solving a mystery. Scientists head into the field with a clear goal and a solid hypothesis, but then the data reveals something surprising. That’s when the real detective work begins. This is exactly what happened to a team from the University of Colorado Boulder during a recent field study in rural Oklahoma. They were using a state-of-the-art instrument to track how tiny particles form and grow in the air. But instead of just collecting expected data, they uncovered something completely new: the first-ever airborne detection of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs), a kind of toxic organic pollutant, in the Western Hemisphere. The teams findings were published in ACS Environmental Au. “It’s very exciting as a scientist to find something unexpected like this that we weren’t looking for,” said Daniel Katz, CU Boulder chemistry PhD student and lead author of the study. “We’re starting to learn more about this toxic, organic pollutant that we know is out there, and which we need to understand better.” MCCPs are currently under consideration for regulation by the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty to protect human health from long-standing and widespread chemicals. While the toxic pollutants have been measured in Antarctica and Asia, researchers haven’t been sure how to document them in the Western Hemisphere’s atmosphere until now. From Wastewater to Farmlands MCCPs are used in fluids for metal working and in the construction of PVC and textiles. They are often found in wastewater and as a result, can end up in biosolid fertilizer, also called sewage sludge, which is created when liquid is removed from wastewater in a treatment plant. In Oklahoma, researchers suspect the MCCPs they identified came from biosolid fertilizer in the fields near where they set up their instrument. “When sewage sludges are spread across the fields, those toxic compounds could be released into the air,” Katz said. “We can’t show directly that that’s happening, but we think it’s a reasonable way that they could be winding up in the air. Sewage sludge fertilizers have been shown to release similar compounds.” MCCPs little cousins, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCPs), are currently regulated by the Stockholm Convention, and since 2009, by the EPA here in the United States. Regulation came after studies found the toxic pollutants, which travel far and last a long time in the atmosphere, were harmful to human health. But researchers hypothesize that the regulation of SCCPs may have increased MCCPs in the environment. “We always have these unintended consequences of regulation, where you regulate something, and then there’s still a need for the products that those were in,” said Ellie Browne, CU Boulder chemistry professor, CIRES Fellow, and co-author of the study. “So they get replaced by something.” Measurement of aerosols led to a new and surprising discovery Using a nitrate chemical ionization mass spectrometer, which allows scientists to identify chemical compounds in the air, the team measured air at the agricultural site 24 hours a day for one month. As Katz cataloged the data, he documented the different isotopic patterns in the compounds. The compounds measured by the team had distinct patterns, and he noticed new patterns that he immediately identified as different from the known chemical compounds. With some additional research, he identified them as chlorinated paraffins found in MCCPs. Katz says the makeup of MCCPs are similar to PFAS, long-lasting toxic chemicals that break down slowly over time. Known as “forever chemicals,” their presence in soils recently led the Oklahoma Senate to ban biosolid fertilizer. Now that researchers know how to measure MCCPs, the next step might be to measure the pollutants at different times throughout the year to understand how levels change each season. Many unknowns surrounding MCCPs remain, and there’s much more to learn about their environmental impacts. “We identified them, but we still don’t know exactly what they do when they are in the atmosphere, and they need to be investigated further,” Katz said. “I think it’s important that we continue to have governmental agencies that are capable of evaluating the science and regulating these chemicals as necessary for public health and safety.” Reference: “Real-Time Measurements of Gas-Phase Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins Reveal Daily Changes in Gas-Particle Partitioning Controlled by Ambient Temperature” by Daniel John Katz, Bri Dobson, Mitchell Alton, Harald Stark, Douglas R. Worsnop, Manjula R. Canagaratna and Eleanor C. Browne, 5 June 2025, ACS Environmental Au. DOI: 10.1021/acsenvironau.5c00038 Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

The government has axed a scheme for upgrading energy efficiency in public sector buildings. The Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) delivered more than £2.5bn in its first three phases for measures such as heat pumps, solar panels, insulation and double glazing, with further funding of nearly £1bn recently announced. But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has told Building Design that the scheme has been dropped after the spending review, leaving uncertainty about how upgrades will be funded when the current phase expires in 2028. Source: UK Government/FlickrEd Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible for the scheme The department said it would set out plans for the period after 2028 in due course. In a post on LinkedIn, Dave Welkin, director of sustainability at Gleeds, said he had waited for the release of the spending review with a “sense of trepidation” and was unable to find mention of public sector decarbonisation when Treasury documents were released. “I hoped because it was already committed in the Budget that its omission wasn’t ominous,” he wrote. Yesterday, he was told by Salix Finance, the non-departmental public body that delivers funding for the scheme, that it was no longer being funded. It comes after the withdrawal of funding for the Low Carbon Skills Fund (LCSF) in May. According to the government’s website, PSDS and LCSF were intended to support the reduction of emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037, compared to a 2017 baseline. “Neither LCSF or PSDS were perfect by any means, but they did provide a vital source of funding for local authorities, hospitals, schools and many other public sector organisations to save energy, carbon and money,” Welkin said. “PSDS has helped replace failed heating systems in schools, keeping students warm. It’s replaced roofs on hospitals, helping patients recover from illness. It’s replaced windows in our prisons, improving security and stopping drugs getting behind bars.” However, responding to Welkin’s post, Steve Connolly, chief executive at Arriba Technologies, a low carbon heating and cooling firm, said that the scheme was being “mismanaged” with a small number of professional services firms “scooping up disproportionately large grants for their clients”. The fourth phase of the scheme was confirmed last September, with allocations confirmed only last month. This latest phase, which covers the financial years between 2025/26 and 2027/28, saw the distribution of £940m across the country. A DESNZ spokesperson said: “Our settlement is about investing in Britain’s renewal to create energy security, sprint to clean power by 2030, encourage investment, create jobs and bring down bills for good. “We will deliver £1bn in current allocations of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme until 2028 and, through Great British Energy, have invested in new rooftop solar power and renewable schemes to lower energy bills for schools and hospitals across the UK. “We want to build on this progress by incentivising the public sector to decarbonise, so they can reap the benefits in lower bills and emissions, sharing best practice across government and exploring the use of repayable finance, where appropriate.” A government assessment of phase 3a and 3b projects identified a number of issues with the scheme, including delays and cost inflation, with more than a tenth being abandoned subsequent to grants being offered. Stakeholders interviewed for the report also identified “difficulties in obtaining skilled contractors and equipment”, especially air source heat pumps. The first come first served approach to awarding funding was also said to be “encouraging applicants to opt for more straightforward projects” and “potentially undermining the achievement of PSDS objective by restricting the opportunity for larger [and] more complex measures which may have delivered greater carbon reduction benefits”. But the consensus among stakeholders and industry representatives interviewed for the report was that the scheme was “currently key to sustaining the existing UK heat pump market” and that it was “seen as vital in enabling many public sector organisations to invest in heat decarbonisation”.

You’ve drawn fifty versions of the same screen — and you still hate every one of them. Begrudgingly, you pick three, show them to your product manager, and hear: “Looks cool, but the idea doesn’t work.” Sound familiar? In this article, I’ll unpack why designers fall into detail work at the wrong moment, examining both process pitfalls and the underlying psychological reasons, as understanding these traps is the first step to overcoming them. I’ll also share tactics I use to climb out of that trap. Reason #1 You’re Afraid To Show Rough Work We designers worship detail. We’re taught that true craft equals razor‑sharp typography, perfect grids, and pixel precision. So the minute a task arrives, we pop open Figma and start polishing long before polish is needed. I’ve skipped the sketch phase more times than I care to admit. I told myself it would be faster, yet I always ended up spending hours producing a tidy mock‑up when a scribbled thumbnail would have sparked a five‑minute chat with my product manager. Rough sketches felt “unprofessional,” so I hid them. The cost? Lost time, wasted energy — and, by the third redo, teammates were quietly wondering if I even understood the brief. The real problem here is the habit: we open Figma and start perfecting the UI before we’ve even solved the problem. So why do we hide these rough sketches? It’s not just a bad habit or plain silly. There are solid psychological reasons behind it. We often just call it perfectionism, but it’s deeper than wanting things neat. Digging into the psychology (like the research by Hewitt and Flett) shows there are a couple of flavors driving this: Socially prescribed perfectionismIt’s that nagging feeling that everyone else expects perfect work from you, which makes showing anything rough feel like walking into the lion’s den. Self-oriented perfectionismWhere you’re the one setting impossibly high standards for yourself, leading to brutal self-criticism if anything looks slightly off. Either way, the result’s the same: showing unfinished work feels wrong, and you miss out on that vital early feedback. Back to the design side, remember that clients rarely see architects’ first pencil sketches, but these sketches still exist; they guide structural choices before the 3D render. Treat your thumbnails the same way — artifacts meant to collapse uncertainty, not portfolio pieces. Once stakeholders see the upside, roughness becomes a badge of speed, not sloppiness. So, the key is to consciously make that shift: Treat early sketches as disposable tools for thinking and actively share them to get feedback faster. Reason #2: You Fix The Symptom, Not The Cause Before tackling any task, we need to understand what business outcome we’re aiming for. Product managers might come to us asking to enlarge the payment button in the shopping cart because users aren’t noticing it. The suggested solution itself isn’t necessarily bad, but before redesigning the button, we should ask, “What data suggests they aren’t noticing it?” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you shouldn’t trust your product manager. On the contrary, these questions help ensure you’re on the same page and working with the same data. From my experience, here are several reasons why users might not be clicking that coveted button: Users don’t understand that this step is for payment. They understand it’s about payment but expect order confirmation first. Due to incorrect translation, users don’t understand what the button means. Lack of trust signals (no security icons, unclear seller information). Unexpected additional costs (hidden fees, shipping) that appear at this stage. Technical issues (inactive button, page freezing). Now, imagine you simply did what the manager suggested. Would you have solved the problem? Hardly. Moreover, the responsibility for the unresolved issue would fall on you, as the interface solution lies within the design domain. The product manager actually did their job correctly by identifying a problem: suspiciously, few users are clicking the button. Psychologically, taking on this bigger role isn’t easy. It means overcoming the fear of making mistakes and the discomfort of exploring unclear problems rather than just doing tasks. This shift means seeing ourselves as partners who create value — even if it means fighting a hesitation to question product managers (which might come from a fear of speaking up or a desire to avoid challenging authority) — and understanding that using our product logic expertise proactively is crucial for modern designers. There’s another critical reason why we, designers, need to be a bit like product managers: the rise of AI. I deliberately used a simple example about enlarging a button, but I’m confident that in the near future, AI will easily handle routine design tasks. This worries me, but at the same time, I’m already gladly stepping into the product manager’s territory: understanding product and business metrics, formulating hypotheses, conducting research, and so on. It might sound like I’m taking work away from PMs, but believe me, they undoubtedly have enough on their plates and are usually more than happy to delegate some responsibilities to designers. Reason #3: You’re Solving The Wrong Problem Before solving anything, ask whether the problem even deserves your attention. During a major home‑screen redesign, our goal was to drive more users into paid services. The initial hypothesis — making service buttons bigger and brighter might help returning users — seemed reasonable enough to test. However, even when A/B tests (a method of comparing two versions of a design to determine which performs better) showed minimal impact, we continued to tweak those buttons. Only later did it click: the home screen isn’t the place to sell; visitors open the app to start, not to buy. We removed that promo block, and nothing broke. Contextual entry points deeper into the journey performed brilliantly. Lesson learned: Without the right context, any visual tweak is lipstick on a pig. Why did we get stuck polishing buttons instead of stopping sooner? It’s easy to get tunnel vision. Psychologically, it’s likely the good old sunk cost fallacy kicking in: we’d already invested time in the buttons, so stopping felt like wasting that effort, even though the data wasn’t promising. It’s just easier to keep fiddling with something familiar than to admit we need a new plan. Perhaps the simple question I should have asked myself when results stalled was: “Are we optimizing the right thing or just polishing something that fundamentally doesn’t fit the user’s primary goal here?” That alone might have saved hours. Reason #4: You’re Drowning In Unactionable Feedback We all discuss our work with colleagues. But here’s a crucial point: what kind of question do you pose to kick off that discussion? If your go-to is “What do you think?” well, that question might lead you down a rabbit hole of personal opinions rather than actionable insights. While experienced colleagues will cut through the noise, others, unsure what to evaluate, might comment on anything and everything — fonts, button colors, even when you desperately need to discuss a user flow. What matters here are two things: The question you ask, The context you give. That means clearly stating the problem, what you’ve learned, and how your idea aims to fix it. For instance: “The problem is our payment conversion rate has dropped by X%. I’ve interviewed users and found they abandon payment because they don’t understand how the total amount is calculated. My solution is to show a detailed cost breakdown. Do you think this actually solves the problem for them?” Here, you’ve stated the problem (conversion drop), shared your insight (user confusion), explained your solution (cost breakdown), and asked a direct question. It’s even better if you prepare a list of specific sub-questions. For instance: “Are all items in the cost breakdown clear?” or “Does the placement of this breakdown feel intuitive within the payment flow?” Another good habit is to keep your rough sketches and previous iterations handy. Some of your colleagues’ suggestions might be things you’ve already tried. It’s great if you can discuss them immediately to either revisit those ideas or definitively set them aside. I’m not a psychologist, but experience tells me that, psychologically, the reluctance to be this specific often stems from a fear of our solution being rejected. We tend to internalize feedback: a seemingly innocent comment like, “Have you considered other ways to organize this section?” or “Perhaps explore a different structure for this part?” can instantly morph in our minds into “You completely messed up the structure. You’re a bad designer.” Imposter syndrome, in all its glory. So, to wrap up this point, here are two recommendations: Prepare for every design discussion.A couple of focused questions will yield far more valuable input than a vague “So, what do you think?”. Actively work on separating feedback on your design from your self-worth.If a mistake is pointed out, acknowledge it, learn from it, and you’ll be less likely to repeat it. This is often easier said than done. For me, it took years of working with a psychotherapist. If you struggle with this, I sincerely wish you strength in overcoming it. Reason #5 You’re Just Tired Sometimes, the issue isn’t strategic at all — it’s fatigue. Fussing over icon corners can feel like a cozy bunker when your brain is fried. There’s a name for this: decision fatigue. Basically, your brain’s battery for hard thinking is low, so it hides out in the easy, comfy zone of pixel-pushing. A striking example comes from a New York Times article titled “Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?.” It described how judges deciding on release requests were far more likely to grant release early in the day (about 70% of cases) compared to late in the day (less than 10%) simply because their decision-making energy was depleted. Luckily, designers rarely hold someone’s freedom in their hands, but the example dramatically shows how fatigue can impact our judgment and productivity. What helps here: Swap tasks.Trade tickets with another designer; novelty resets your focus. Talk to another designer.If NDA permits, ask peers outside the team for a sanity check. Step away.Even a ten‑minute walk can do more than a double‑shot espresso. By the way, I came up with these ideas while walking around my office. I was lucky to work near a river, and those short walks quickly turned into a helpful habit. And one more trick that helps me snap out of detail mode early: if I catch myself making around 20 little tweaks — changing font weight, color, border radius — I just stop. Over time, it turned into a habit. I have a similar one with Instagram: by the third reel, my brain quietly asks, “Wait, weren’t we working?” Funny how that kind of nudge saves a ton of time. Four Steps I Use to Avoid Drowning In Detail Knowing these potential traps, here’s the practical process I use to stay on track: 1. Define the Core Problem & Business Goal Before anything, dig deep: what’s the actual problem we’re solving, not just the requested task or a surface-level symptom? Ask ‘why’ repeatedly. What user pain or business need are we addressing? Then, state the clear business goal: “What metric am I moving, and do we have data to prove this is the right lever?” If retention is the goal, decide whether push reminders, gamification, or personalised content is the best route. The wrong lever, or tackling a symptom instead of the cause, dooms everything downstream. 2. Choose the Mechanic (Solution Principle) Once the core problem and goal are clear, lock the solution principle or ‘mechanic’ first. Going with a game layer? Decide if it’s leaderboards, streaks, or badges. Write it down. Then move on. No UI yet. This keeps the focus high-level before diving into pixels. 3. Wireframe the Flow & Get Focused Feedback Now open Figma. Map screens, layout, and transitions. Boxes and arrows are enough. Keep the fidelity low so the discussion stays on the flow, not colour. Crucially, when you share these early wires, ask specific questions and provide clear context (as discussed in ‘Reason #4’) to get actionable feedback, not just vague opinions. 4. Polish the Visuals (Mindfully) I only let myself tweak grids, type scales, and shadows after the flow is validated. If progress stalls, or before a major polish effort, I surface the work in a design critique — again using targeted questions and clear context — instead of hiding in version 47. This ensures detailing serves the now-validated solution. Even for something as small as a single button, running these four checkpoints takes about ten minutes and saves hours of decorative dithering. Wrapping Up Next time you feel the pull to vanish into mock‑ups before the problem is nailed down, pause and ask what you might be avoiding. Yes, that can expose an uncomfortable truth. But pausing to ask what you might be avoiding — maybe the fuzzy core problem, or just asking for tough feedback — gives you the power to face the real issue head-on. It keeps the project focused on solving the right problem, not just perfecting a flawed solution. Attention to detail is a superpower when used at the right moment. Obsessing over pixels too soon, though, is a bad habit and a warning light telling us the process needs a rethink.

IntroductionHello! My name is Denys. I was born and raised in Nigeria, where I'm currently based. I began my journey into 3D art in March 2022, teaching myself through online resources, starting, of course, with the iconic donut tutorial on YouTube. Since then, I've continued to grow my skills independently, and now I'm working toward a career in 3D generalism, with a particular interest in environment art.I originally got into Blender because SketchUp wasn't free, and I could not keep up with the subscriptions. While searching for alternatives, I came across Blender. That's when I realized I had installed it once years ago, but back then, the interface completely intimidated me, and I gave up on it. This time, though, I decided to stick with it – and I'm glad I did.I started out creating simple models. One of my first big projects was modeling the entire SpongeBob crew. That led to my first animation, and eventually, the first four episodes of a short animated series (though it's still incomplete). As I grew more confident, I began participating in online 3D competitions, like cgandwe, where I focused on designing realistic environments. Those experiences have played a huge role in getting me to where I am today.Getting Started Before starting any scene, I always look for references. It might not be the most original approach, but it's what works best for me. One piece that inspired me was a beautiful artwork by Calder Moore. I bookmarked it as soon as I saw it back in 2023, and luckily, I finally found the time to bring it to life last month.BlockoutThe goal was to match the original camera angle and roughly model the main frame of the structures. It wasn't perfect, but modeling and placing the lower docks helped me get the perspective right. Then I moved on to modeling and positioning the major structures in the scene.I gave myself two weeks to complete this project. And as much as I enjoy modeling, I also enjoy not modeling, so I turned to asset kits and free models to help speed things up. I came across an awesome paid kit by Bigmediumsmall and instantly knew it would fit perfectly into my scene.I also downloaded a few models from Sketchfab, including a lamp, desk console, freighter controls, and a robotic arm, which I later took apart to add extra detail. Another incredibly helpful tool was the Random Flow add-on by BlenderGuppy, which made adding sci-fi elements much easier. Lastly, I pulled in some models from my older sci-fi and cyberpunk projects to round things out.Kitbashing Once I had the overall shape I was aiming for, I moved on to kitbashing to pack in as much detail as possible. There wasn't any strict method to the madness; I simply picked assets I liked, whether it was a set of pipes, vents, or even a random shape that just worked in the sci-fi context. I focused first on kitbashing the front structure, and used the Random Flow add-on to fill in areas where I didn't kitbash manually. Then I moved on to the other collections, following the same process.The freighter was the final piece of the puzzle, and I knew it was going to be a challenge. Part of me wanted to model it entirely from scratch, but the more practical side knew I could save a lot of time by sticking with my usual method. So I modeled the main shapes myself, then kitbashed the details to bring it to life. I also grabbed some crates from Sketchfab to fill out the scene.Texturing This part was easily my favorite, and there was no shortcut here. I had to meticulously create each material myself. Well, I did use PBR materials downloaded from CGAmbient as a base, but I spent a lot of time tweaking and editing them to get everything just right.Texturing has always been my favorite stage when building scenes like this. Many artists prefer external tools like Substance 3D Painter (which I did use for some of the models), but I've learned so much about procedural texturing, especially from RyanKingArt, that I couldn't let it go. It's such a flexible and rewarding approach, and I love pushing it as far as I can.I wanted most of the colors in the scene to be dark, but I did keep the original color of the pipes and the pillars, just to add a little bit of vibrance to the scene. I also wanted the overall texture to be very rough and grungy. One of the biggest helps in achieving this was using the Grunge Maps from Substance 3D Painter. I found a way to extract them into Blender, and it helped.A major tool during the texturing phase was Jsplacement, which I used to procedurally generate sci-fi grids and plates. This was the icing on the cake for adding intricate details. Whenever an area felt too flat, I applied bump maps with these grids and panels to bring the materials to life. For example, both the lamp pole and the entire black metal material feature these Jsplacement Maps.Lighting For this, I didn't do anything fancy. I knew the scene was in a high altitude, so I looked for HDRI with a cloudless sky, and I boosted the saturation up a little to give it that high altitude look.Post-Production The rendering phase was challenging since I was working on a low-end laptop. I couldn't render the entire scene all at once, so I broke it down by collections and rendered them as separate layers. Then, I composited the layers together in post-production. I'm not big on heavy post-work, so I kept it simple, mostly tweaking brightness and saturation on my phone. That's about it for the post-production process.Conclusion The entire project took me 10 days to complete, working at least four hours each day. Although I've expressed my love for texturing, my favorite part of this project was the detailing and kitbashing. I really enjoyed piecing all the small details together. The most challenging part was deciding which assets to use and where to place them. I had a lot of greebles to choose from, but I'm happy with the ones I selected; they felt like a perfect fit for the scene.I know kitbashing sometimes gets a negative reputation in the 3D community, but I found it incredibly relieving. Honestly, this project wouldn't have come together without it, so I fully embraced the process.I'm excited to keep making projects like this. The world of 3D art is truly an endless and vast realm, and I encourage every artist like me to keep exploring it, one project at a time.Denys Molokwu, 3D Artist