Remote-sensing data and artificial intelligence are mapping the most heat-vulnerable buildings in cities like Delhi, in an effort to target relief from extreme temperatures at a granular level.

Studio management platform for VFX and visualization gets new scheduling, conflict detection and resource usage tracking features.

Durante años, las redes sociales han planteado la pregunta por la edad del usuario con una ligereza que rozaba la farsa. Bastaba un clic para acceder. Muchos menores entraban sin dificultad en plataformas diseñadas para adultos, que ni consideraban s

Barbara Betlejewska is a PR consultant and manager with extensive experience in architecture and real estate, currently involved with World Visualization Festival, a global event bringing together CGI and digital storytelling professionals for 3 days of presentations, workshops, and networking in Warsaw, Poland, this October. Over the last twenty years, visualization and 3D rendering have evolved from supporting tools to become central pillars of architectural storytelling, design development, and marketing across various industries. As digital technologies have advanced, the landscape of creative work has changed dramatically. Artists can now collaborate with clients worldwide without leaving their homes, and their careers can flourish without ever setting foot in a traditional studio. In this hyper-connected world, where access to knowledge, clients, and inspiration is just a click away, do we still need to gather in person? Do conferences, festivals and meetups in the CGI and architectural visualization world still carry weight? The People Behind the Pixels Professionals from the visualization industry exchanging ideas at WVF 2024. For a growing number of professionals — especially those in creative and tech-driven fields — remote work has become the norm. The shift to digital workflows, accelerated by the pandemic, has brought freedom and flexibility that many are reluctant to give up. It’s easier than ever to work for clients in distant cities or countries, to build a freelance career from a laptop, or to pursue the lifestyle of a digital nomad. On the surface, it is a broadening of horizons. But for many, the freedom of remote work comes with a cost: isolation. For visualization artists, the reality often means spending long hours alone, rarely interacting face-to-face with peers or collaborators. And while there are undeniable advantages to independent work, the lack of human connection can lead to creative stagnation, professional burnout, and a sense of detachment from the industry as a whole. Despite being a highly technical and often solitary craft, visualization and CGI thrive on the exchange of ideas, feedback and inspiration. The tools and techniques evolve rapidly, and staying relevant usually means learning not just from tutorials but from honest conversations with others who understand the nuances of the field. A Community in the Making Professionals from the visualization industry exchanging ideas at WVF 2024. That need for connection is what pushed Michał Nowak, a Polish visualizer and founder of Nowak Studio, to organize Poland’s first-ever architectural visualization meetup in 2017. With no background in event planning, he wasn’t sure where to begin, but he knew something was missing. The Polish Arch Viz scene lacked a shared space for meetings, discussions, and idea exchange. Michał wanted more than screen time; he wanted honest conversations, spontaneous collaboration and a chance to grow alongside others in the field. What began as a modest gathering quickly grew into something much bigger. That original meetup evolved into what is now the World Visualization Festival (WVF), an international event that welcomes artists from across Europe and beyond. “I didn’t expect our small gathering to grow into a global festival,” Michał says. “But I knew I wanted a connection. I believed that through sharing ideas and experiences, we could all grow professionally, creatively, and personally. And that we’d enjoy the journey more.” The response was overwhelming. Each year, more artists from across Poland and Europe join the event in Wrocław, located in south-western Poland. Michał also traveled to other festivals in countries like Portugal and Austria, where he observed the same thing: a spirit of openness, generosity, and shared curiosity. No matter the country or the maturity of the market, the needs were the same — people wanted to connect, learn and grow. And beyond the professional side, there was something else: joy. These events were simply fun. They were energizing. They gave people a reason to step away from their desks and remember why they love what they do. The Professional Benefits Hands-on learning at the AI-driven visualization workshop in Warsaw, October 2024. The professional benefits of attending industry events are well documented. These gatherings provide access to mentorship, collaboration and knowledge that can be challenging to find online. Festivals and industry meetups serve as platforms for emerging trends, new tools and fresh workflows — often before they hit the mainstream. They’re places where ideas collide, assumptions are challenged and growth happens. The range of topics covered at such events is broad, encompassing everything from portfolio reviews and in-depth discussions of particular rendering engines to discussions about pricing your work and building a sustainable business. At the 2024 edition of the World Visualization Festival, panels focused on scaling creative businesses and navigating industry rates drew some of the biggest crowds, proving that artists are hungry for both artistic and entrepreneurial insights. Being part of a creative community also shapes professional identity. It’s not just about finding clients — it’s about finding your place. In a field as fast-moving and competitive as Arch Viz, connection and conversation aren’t luxuries. They’re tools for survival. There’s also the matter of building your social capital. Online interactions can only go so far. Meeting someone in person builds relationships that stick. The coffee-break conversations, the spontaneous feedback — these are the moments that cement a community and have the power to spark future projects or long-lasting partnerships. This usually doesn’t happen in Zoom calls. And let’s not forget the symbolic power of events like industry awards, such as the Architizer’s Vision Awards or CGArchitect’s 3D Awards. These aren’t just celebrations of talent; they’re affirmations of the craft itself. They contribute to the growth and cohesion of the industry while helping to establish and promote best practices. These events clearly define the role and significance of CGI and visualization as a distinct profession, positioned at the intersection of architecture, marketing, and sales. They advocate for the field to be recognized on its own terms, not merely as a support service, but as an independent discipline. For its creators, they bring visibility, credit, and recognition — elements that inspire growth and fuel motivation to keep pushing the craft forward. Occasions like these remind us that what we do has actual value, impact and meaning. The Energy We Take Home The WVF 2024 afterparty provided a vibrant space for networking and celebration in Warsaw. Many artists describe the post-event glow: a renewed sense of purpose, a fresh jolt of energy, an eagerness to get back to work. Sometimes, new projects emerge, new clients appear, or long-dormant ideas finally gain momentum. These events aren’t just about learning — they’re about recharging. One of the most potent moments of last year’s WVF was a series of talks focused on mental health and creative well-being. Co-organized by Michał Nowak and the Polish Arch Viz studio ELEMENT, the festival addressed the emotional realities of the profession, including burnout, self-doubt, and the pressure to constantly produce. These conversations resonated deeply because they were real. Seeing that others face the same struggles — and come through them — is profoundly reassuring. Listening to someone share a business strategy that worked, or a failure they learned from, turns competition into camaraderie. Vulnerability becomes strength. Shared experiences become the foundation of resilience. Make a Statement. Show up! Top industry leaders shared insights during presentations at WVF 2024 In an era when nearly everything can be done online, showing up in person is a powerful statement. It says: I want more than just efficiency. I want connection, creativity and conversation. As the CGI and visualization industries continue to evolve, the need for human connection hasn’t disappeared — it’s grown stronger. Conferences, festivals and meetups, such as World Viz Fest, remain vital spaces for knowledge sharing, innovation and community building. They give us a chance to reset, reconnect and remember that we are part of something bigger than our screens. So, yes, despite the tools, the bandwidth, and the ever-faster workflows, we still need to meet in person. Not out of nostalgia, but out of necessity. Because, no matter how far technology takes us, creativity remains a human endeavor. Architizer’s Vision Awards are back! The global awards program honors the world’s best architectural concepts, ideas and imagery. Start your entry ahead of the Final Entry Deadline on July 11th.  The post Building an Architectural Visualization Community: The Case for Physical Gatherings appeared first on Journal.

Sovereignty has mattered since the invention of the nation state—defined by borders, laws, and taxes that apply within and without. While many have tried to define it, the core idea remains: nations or jurisdictions seek to stay in control, usually to the benefit of those within their borders. Digital sovereignty is a relatively new concept, also difficult to define but straightforward to understand. Data and applications don’t understand borders unless they are specified in policy terms, as coded into the infrastructure. The World Wide Web had no such restrictions at its inception. Communitarian groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, service providers and hyperscalers, non-profits and businesses all embraced a model that suggested data would look after itself. But data won’t look after itself, for several reasons. First, data is massively out of control. We generate more of it all the time, and for at least two or three decades (according to historical surveys I’ve run), most organizations haven’t fully understood their data assets. This creates inefficiency and risk—not least, widespread vulnerability to cyberattack. Risk is probability times impact—and right now, the probabilities have shot up. Invasions, tariffs, political tensions, and more have brought new urgency. This time last year, the idea of switching off another country’s IT systems was not on the radar. Now we’re seeing it happen—including the U.S. government blocking access to services overseas. Digital sovereignty isn’t just a European concern, though it is often framed as such. In South America for example, I am told that sovereignty is leading conversations with hyperscalers; in African countries, it is being stipulated in supplier agreements. Many jurisdictions are watching, assessing, and reviewing their stance on digital sovereignty. As the adage goes: a crisis is a problem with no time left to solve it. Digital sovereignty was a problem in waiting—but now it’s urgent. It’s gone from being an abstract ‘right to sovereignty’ to becoming a clear and present issue, in government thinking, corporate risk and how we architect and operate our computer systems. What does the digital sovereignty landscape look like today? Much has changed since this time last year. Unknowns remain, but much of what was unclear this time last year is now starting to solidify. Terminology is clearer – for example talking about classification and localisation rather than generic concepts. We’re seeing a shift from theory to practice. Governments and organizations are putting policies in place that simply didn’t exist before. For example, some countries are seeing “in-country” as a primary goal, whereas others (the UK included) are adopting a risk-based approach based on trusted locales. We’re also seeing a shift in risk priorities. From a risk standpoint, the classic triad of confidentiality, integrity, and availability are at the heart of the digital sovereignty conversation. Historically, the focus has been much more on confidentiality, driven by concerns about the US Cloud Act: essentially, can foreign governments see my data? This year however, availability is rising in prominence, due to geopolitics and very real concerns about data accessibility in third countries. Integrity is being talked about less from a sovereignty perspective, but is no less important as a cybercrime target—ransomware and fraud being two clear and present risks. Thinking more broadly, digital sovereignty is not just about data, or even intellectual property, but also the brain drain. Countries don’t want all their brightest young technologists leaving university only to end up in California or some other, more attractive country. They want to keep talent at home and innovate locally, to the benefit of their own GDP. How Are Cloud Providers Responding? Hyperscalers are playing catch-up, still looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the law whilst ignoring (in the French sense) its spirit. It’s not enough for Microsoft or AWS to say they will do everything they can to protect a jurisdiction’s data, if they are already legally obliged to do the opposite. Legislation, in this case US legislation, calls the shots—and we all know just how fragile this is right now. We see hyperscaler progress where they offer technology to be locally managed by a third party, rather than themselves. For example, Google’s partnership with Thales, or Microsoft with Orange, both in France (Microsoft has similar in Germany). However, these are point solutions, not part of a general standard. Meanwhile, AWS’ recent announcement about creating a local entity doesn’t solve for the problem of US over-reach, which remains a core issue. Non-hyperscaler providers and software vendors have an increasingly significant play: Oracle and HPE offer solutions that can be deployed and managed locally for example; Broadcom/VMware and Red Hat provide technologies that locally situated, private cloud providers can host. Digital sovereignty is thus a catalyst for a redistribution of “cloud spend” across a broader pool of players. What Can Enterprise Organizations Do About It? First, see digital sovereignty as a core element of data and application strategy. For a nation, sovereignty means having solid borders, control over IP, GDP, and so on. That’s the goal for corporations as well—control, self-determination, and resilience. If sovereignty isn’t seen as an element of strategy, it gets pushed down into the implementation layer, leading to inefficient architectures and duplicated effort. Far better to decide up front what data, applications and processes need to be treated as sovereign, and defining an architecture to support that. This sets the scene for making informed provisioning decisions. Your organization may have made some big bets on key vendors or hyperscalers, but multi-platform thinking increasingly dominates: multiple public and private cloud providers, with integrated operations and management. Sovereign cloud becomes one element of a well-structured multi-platform architecture. It is not cost-neutral to deliver on sovereignty, but the overall business value should be tangible. A sovereignty initiative should bring clear advantages, not just for itself, but through the benefits that come with better control, visibility, and efficiency. Knowing where your data is, understanding which data matters, managing it efficiently so you’re not duplicating or fragmenting it across systems—these are valuable outcomes. In addition, ignoring these questions can lead to non-compliance or be outright illegal. Even if we don’t use terms like ‘sovereignty’, organizations need a handle on their information estate. Organizations shouldn’t be thinking everything cloud-based needs to be sovereign, but should be building strategies and policies based on data classification, prioritization and risk. Build that picture and you can solve for the highest-priority items first—the data with the strongest classification and greatest risk. That process alone takes care of 80–90% of the problem space, avoiding making sovereignty another problem whilst solving nothing. Where to start? Look after your own organization first Sovereignty and systems thinking go hand in hand: it’s all about scope. In enterprise architecture or business design, the biggest mistake is boiling the ocean—trying to solve everything at once. Instead, focus on your own sovereignty. Worry about your own organization, your own jurisdiction. Know where your own borders are. Understand who your customers are, and what their requirements are. For example, if you’re a manufacturer selling into specific countries—what do those countries require? Solve for that, not for everything else. Don’t try to plan for every possible future scenario. Focus on what you have, what you’re responsible for, and what you need to address right now. Classify and prioritise your data assets based on real-world risk. Do that, and you’re already more than halfway toward solving digital sovereignty—with all the efficiency, control, and compliance benefits that come with it. Digital sovereignty isn’t just regulatory, but strategic. Organizations that act now can reduce risk, improve operational clarity, and prepare for a future based on trust, compliance, and resilience. The post Reclaiming Control: Digital Sovereignty in 2025 appeared first on Gigaom.

The recent wave of cyber attacks targeting UK retailers has been a moment of reckoning for the entire retail industry. As someone who went through supporting one of the largest retail breaches in history, this news hits close to home. The National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) call to strengthen IT support protocols reinforces a hard truth: cybersecurity is no longer just a technical/operational issue. It’s a business issue that directly affects revenue, customer trust, and brand reputation. Retailers today are navigating an increasingly complex threat landscape, while also managing a vast user base that needs to stay informed and secure. The recent attacks don’t represent a failure, but an opportunity - an inflection point to invest in stronger visibility, continuous monitoring and a culture of shared responsibility that meets the realities of modern retail. We know that the cyber groups responsible for the recent retail hacks used sophisticated social engineering techniques, such as impersonating employees to deceive IT help desks into resetting passwords and providing information, thereby gaining unauthorised access to internal systems. Employees are increasingly a target, and retailers employ some of the largest, most diverse workforces, making them an even bigger risk with countless touchpoints for breaches. In these organisations, a cybersecurity-first culture is vital to combatting threats. Cybersecurity-first culture includes employees that are aware of these types of attacks and understand how to report them if they are contacted. In order to establish a cybersecurity-first culture, employees must be empowered to recognise and respond to threats, not just avoid them. This can be done through simulation training and threat assessments - showcasing real life examples of threats and brainstorming possible solutions to control and prevent further and future damage. This allows security teams to focus on strategy instead of constant firefighting, while leadership support - through budget, tools, and tone - reinforces its importance at every level. In addition to support workers, vendors also pose a significant attack path for bad actors. According to data from Elastic Path, 42% of retailers admit that legacy technology could be leaving them exposed to cyber risks. And with the accelerating pace of innovation, modern cyber threats are not only more complex, but often enter through unexpected avenues, like third-party vendors. Research from Vanta shows 46% of organisations say that a vendor of theirs has experienced a data breach since they started working together. The M&S breach is a case in point, with it being reported that attackers exploited a vulnerability in a contractor’s systems, not the retailer’s own. This underscores that visibility must extend beyond your perimeter to encompass the entire digital supply chain, in real time. Threats don’t wait for your quarterly review or annual audit. If you're only checking your controls or vendor status once a year, you're already behind. This means real-time visibility is now foundational to cyber defence. We need to know when something changes the moment it happens. This can be done through continuous monitoring, both for the technical controls and the relationships that introduce risk into your environment. We also need to rethink the way we resource and prioritise that visibility. Manual processes don’t scale with the complexity of modern infrastructure. Automation and tooling can help surface the right signals from the noise - whether it’s misconfigurations, access drift, or suspicious vendor behavior. The best case scenario is that security measures are embedded into all digital architecture, utilising a few security ‘must haves’ such as secure coding, continuous monitoring, and regular testing and improvement. Retailers who want to get proactive and about breaches following the events of the last few weeks can follow this action plan to get started: First, awareness - have your security leadership send a message out to managers of help desks and support teams to make sure they are aware of the recent attacks on retailers, and are in a position to inform teams of what to look out for. Then, investigate - pinpoint the attack path used on other retailers to make sure you have a full understanding of the risk to your organisation. After that, assess - conduct a threat assessment to identify what could go wrong, or how this attack path could be used in your organisation. The final step is to identify - figure out the highest risk gaps in your organisation, and the remediation steps to address each one. Strong cybersecurity doesn’t come from quick fixes - it takes time, leadership buy-in, and a shift in mindset across the organisation. My advice to security teams is simple: speak in outcomes. Frame cyber risk as business risk, because that’s what it is. The retailers that have fallen victim to recent attacks are facing huge financial losses, which makes this not just an IT issue - it’s a boardroom issue. Customers are paying attention. They want to trust the brands they buy from, and that trust is built on transparency and preparation. The recent retail attacks aren’t a reason to panic - they’re a reason to reset, evaluate current state risks, and fully understand the potential impacts of what is happening elsewhere. This is the moment to invest in your infrastructure, empower your teams, and embed security into your operations. The organisations that do this now won’t just be safer - they’ll be more competitive, more resilient, and better positioned for whatever comes next. Jadee Hanson is the Chief Information Security Officer at Vanta Read more about cyber security in retail Content Goes Here Harrods becomes latest UK retailer to fall victim to cyber attack Retail cyber crime spree a ‘wake-up call’, says NCSC CEO Retail cyber attacks hit food distributor Peter Green Chilled

Guided by visual effects supervisor John Knoll, ILM embraced continually evolving methodologies to craft breathtaking visual effects for the iconic space battles in First Contact and Rogue One. By Jay Stobie Visual effects supervisor John Knoll (right) confers with modelmakers Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Bolstered by visual effects from Industrial Light & Magic, Star Trek: First Contact (1996) and Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) propelled their respective franchises to new heights. While Star Trek Generations (1994) welcomed Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s (Patrick Stewart) crew to the big screen, First Contact stood as the first Star Trek feature that did not focus on its original captain, the legendary James T. Kirk (William Shatner). Similarly, though Rogue One immediately preceded the events of Star Wars: A New Hope (1977), it was set apart from the episodic Star Wars films and launched an era of storytelling outside of the main Skywalker saga that has gone on to include Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018), The Mandalorian (2019-23), Andor (2022-25), Ahsoka (2023), The Acolyte (2024), and more. The two films also shared a key ILM contributor, John Knoll, who served as visual effects supervisor on both projects, as well as an executive producer on Rogue One. Currently, ILM’s executive creative director and senior visual effects supervisor, Knoll – who also conceived the initial framework for Rogue One’s story – guided ILM as it brought its talents to bear on these sci-fi and fantasy epics. The work involved crafting two spectacular starship-packed space clashes – First Contact’s Battle of Sector 001 and Rogue One’s Battle of Scarif. Although these iconic installments were released roughly two decades apart, they represent a captivating case study of how ILM’s approach to visual effects has evolved over time. With this in mind, let’s examine the films’ unforgettable space battles through the lens of fascinating in-universe parallels and the ILM-produced fleets that face off near Earth and Scarif. A final frame from the Battle of Scarif in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). A Context for Conflict In First Contact, the United Federation of Planets – a 200-year-old interstellar government consisting of more than 150 member worlds – braces itself for an invasion by the Borg – an overwhelmingly powerful collective composed of cybernetic beings who devastate entire planets by assimilating their biological populations and technological innovations. The Borg only send a single vessel, a massive cube containing thousands of hive-minded drones and their queen, pushing the Federation’s Starfleet defenders to Earth’s doorstep. Conversely, in Rogue One, the Rebel Alliance – a fledgling coalition of freedom fighters – seeks to undermine and overthrow the stalwart Galactic Empire – a totalitarian regime preparing to tighten its grip on the galaxy by revealing a horrifying superweapon. A rebel team infiltrates a top-secret vault on Scarif in a bid to steal plans to that battle station, the dreaded Death Star, with hopes of exploiting a vulnerability in its design. On the surface, the situations could not seem to be more disparate, particularly in terms of the Federation’s well-established prestige and the Rebel Alliance’s haphazardly organized factions. Yet, upon closer inspection, the spaceborne conflicts at Earth and Scarif are linked by a vital commonality. The threat posed by the Borg is well-known to the Federation, but the sudden intrusion upon their space takes its defenses by surprise. Starfleet assembles any vessel within range – including antiquated Oberth-class science ships – to intercept the Borg cube in the Typhon Sector, only to be forced back to Earth on the edge of defeat. The unsanctioned mission to Scarif with Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) and Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and the sudden need to take down the planet’s shield gate propels the Rebel Alliance fleet into rushing to their rescue with everything from their flagship Profundity to GR-75 medium transports. Whether Federation or Rebel Alliance, these fleets gather in last-ditch efforts to oppose enemies who would embrace their eradication – the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are fights for survival. From Physical to Digital By the time Jonathan Frakes was selected to direct First Contact, Star Trek’s reliance on constructing traditional physical models (many of which were built by ILM) for its features was gradually giving way to innovative computer graphics (CG) models, resulting in the film’s use of both techniques. “If one of the ships was to be seen full-screen and at length,” associate visual effects supervisor George Murphy told Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin, “we knew it would be done as a stage model. Ships that would be doing a lot of elaborate maneuvers in space battle scenes would be created digitally.” In fact, physical and CG versions of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E appear in the film, with the latter being harnessed in shots involving the vessel’s entry into a temporal vortex at the conclusion of the Battle of Sector 001. Despite the technological leaps that ILM pioneered in the decades between First Contact and Rogue One, they considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in the latter film. ILM considered filming physical miniatures for certain ship-related shots in Rogue One. The feature’s fleets were ultimately created digitally to allow for changes throughout post-production. “If it’s a photographed miniature element, it’s not possible to go back and make adjustments. So it’s the additional flexibility that comes with the computer graphics models that’s very attractive to many people,” John Knoll relayed to writer Jon Witmer at American Cinematographer’s TheASC.com. However, Knoll aimed to develop computer graphics that retained the same high-quality details as their physical counterparts, leading ILM to employ a modern approach to a time-honored modelmaking tactic. “I also wanted to emulate the kit-bashing aesthetic that had been part of Star Wars from the very beginning, where a lot of mechanical detail had been added onto the ships by using little pieces from plastic model kits,” explained Knoll in his chat with TheASC.com. For Rogue One, ILM replicated the process by obtaining such kits, scanning their parts, building a computer graphics library, and applying the CG parts to digitally modeled ships. “I’m very happy to say it was super-successful,” concluded Knoll. “I think a lot of our digital models look like they are motion-control models.” John Knoll (second from left) confers with Kim Smith and John Goodson with the miniature of the U.S.S. Enterprise-E during production of Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: ILM). Legendary Lineages In First Contact, Captain Picard commanded a brand-new vessel, the Sovereign-class U.S.S. Enterprise-E, continuing the celebrated starship’s legacy in terms of its famous name and design aesthetic. Designed by John Eaves and developed into blueprints by Rick Sternbach, the Enterprise-E was built into a 10-foot physical model by ILM model project supervisor John Goodson and his shop’s talented team. ILM infused the ship with extraordinary detail, including viewports equipped with backlit set images from the craft’s predecessor, the U.S.S. Enterprise-D. For the vessel’s larger windows, namely those associated with the observation lounge and arboretum, ILM took a painstakingly practical approach to match the interiors shown with the real-world set pieces. “We filled that area of the model with tiny, micro-scale furniture,” Goodson informed Cinefex, “including tables and chairs.” Rogue One’s rebel team initially traversed the galaxy in a U-wing transport/gunship, which, much like the Enterprise-E, was a unique vessel that nonetheless channeled a certain degree of inspiration from a classic design. Lucasfilm’s Doug Chiang, a co-production designer for Rogue One, referred to the U-wing as the film’s “Huey helicopter version of an X-wing” in the Designing Rogue One bonus featurette on Disney+ before revealing that, “Towards the end of the design cycle, we actually decided that maybe we should put in more X-wing features. And so we took the X-wing engines and literally mounted them onto the configuration that we had going.” Modeled by ILM digital artist Colie Wertz, the U-wing’s final computer graphics design subtly incorporated these X-wing influences to give the transport a distinctive feel without making the craft seem out of place within the rebel fleet. While ILM’s work on the Enterprise-E’s viewports offered a compelling view toward the ship’s interior, a breakthrough LED setup for Rogue One permitted ILM to obtain realistic lighting on actors as they looked out from their ships and into the space around them. “All of our major spaceship cockpit scenes were done that way, with the gimbal in this giant horseshoe of LED panels we got from [equipment vendor] VER, and we prepared graphics that went on the screens,” John Knoll shared with American Cinematographer’s Benjamin B and Jon D. Witmer. Furthermore, in Disney+’s Rogue One: Digital Storytelling bonus featurette, visual effects producer Janet Lewin noted, “For the actors, I think, in the space battle cockpits, for them to be able to see what was happening in the battle brought a higher level of accuracy to their performance.” The U.S.S. Enterprise-E in Star Trek: First Contact (Credit: Paramount). Familiar Foes To transport First Contact’s Borg invaders, John Goodson’s team at ILM resurrected the Borg cube design previously seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993), creating a nearly three-foot physical model to replace the one from the series. Art consultant and ILM veteran Bill George proposed that the cube’s seemingly straightforward layout be augmented with a complex network of photo-etched brass, a suggestion which produced a jagged surface and offered a visual that was both intricate and menacing. ILM also developed a two-foot motion-control model for a Borg sphere, a brand-new auxiliary vessel that emerged from the cube. “We vacuformed about 15 different patterns that conformed to this spherical curve and covered those with a lot of molded and cast pieces. Then we added tons of acid-etched brass over it, just like we had on the cube,” Goodson outlined to Cinefex’s Kevin H. Martin. As for Rogue One’s villainous fleet, reproducing the original trilogy’s Death Star and Imperial Star Destroyers centered upon translating physical models into digital assets. Although ILM no longer possessed A New Hope’s three-foot Death Star shooting model, John Knoll recreated the station’s surface paneling by gathering archival images, and as he spelled out to writer Joe Fordham in Cinefex, “I pieced all the images together. I unwrapped them into texture space and projected them onto a sphere with a trench. By doing that with enough pictures, I got pretty complete coverage of the original model, and that became a template upon which to redraw very high-resolution texture maps. Every panel, every vertical striped line, I matched from a photograph. It was as accurate as it was possible to be as a reproduction of the original model.” Knoll’s investigative eye continued to pay dividends when analyzing the three-foot and eight-foot Star Destroyer motion-control models, which had been built for A New Hope and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), respectively. “Our general mantra was, ‘Match your memory of it more than the reality,’ because sometimes you go look at the actual prop in the archive building or you look back at the actual shot from the movie, and you go, ‘Oh, I remember it being a little better than that,’” Knoll conveyed to TheASC.com. This philosophy motivated ILM to combine elements from those two physical models into a single digital design. “Generally, we copied the three-footer for details like the superstructure on the top of the bridge, but then we copied the internal lighting plan from the eight-footer,” Knoll explained. “And then the upper surface of the three-footer was relatively undetailed because there were no shots that saw it closely, so we took a lot of the high-detail upper surface from the eight-footer. So it’s this amalgam of the two models, but the goal was to try to make it look like you remember it from A New Hope.” A final frame from Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Forming Up the Fleets In addition to the U.S.S. Enterprise-E, the Battle of Sector 001 debuted numerous vessels representing four new Starfleet ship classes – the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, and Norway – all designed by ILM visual effects art director Alex Jaeger. “Since we figured a lot of the background action in the space battle would be done with computer graphics ships that needed to be built from scratch anyway, I realized that there was no reason not to do some new designs,” John Knoll told American Cinematographer writer Ron Magid. Used in previous Star Trek projects, older physical models for the Oberth and Nebula classes were mixed into the fleet for good measure, though the vast majority of the armada originated as computer graphics. Over at Scarif, ILM portrayed the Rebel Alliance forces with computer graphics models of fresh designs (the MC75 cruiser Profundity and U-wings), live-action versions of Star Wars Rebels’ VCX-100 light freighter Ghost and Hammerhead corvettes, and Star Wars staples (Nebulon-B frigates, X-wings, Y-wings, and more). These ships face off against two Imperial Star Destroyers and squadrons of TIE fighters, and – upon their late arrival to the battle – Darth Vader’s Star Destroyer and the Death Star. The Tantive IV, a CR90 corvette more popularly referred to as a blockade runner, made its own special cameo at the tail end of the fight. As Princess Leia Organa’s (Carrie Fisher and Ingvild Deila) personal ship, the Tantive IV received the Death Star plans and fled the scene, destined to be captured by Vader’s Star Destroyer at the beginning of A New Hope. And, while we’re on the subject of intricate starship maneuvers and space-based choreography… Although the First Contact team could plan visual effects shots with animated storyboards, ILM supplied Gareth Edwards with a next-level virtual viewfinder that allowed the director to select his shots by immersing himself among Rogue One’s ships in real time. “What we wanted to do is give Gareth the opportunity to shoot his space battles and other all-digital scenes the same way he shoots his live-action. Then he could go in with this sort of virtual viewfinder and view the space battle going on, and figure out what the best angle was to shoot those ships from,” senior animation supervisor Hal Hickel described in the Rogue One: Digital Storytelling featurette. Hickel divulged that the sequence involving the dish array docking with the Death Star was an example of the “spontaneous discovery of great angles,” as the scene was never storyboarded or previsualized. Visual effects supervisor John Knoll with director Gareth Edwards during production of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Credit: ILM & Lucasfilm). Tough Little Ships The Federation and Rebel Alliance each deployed “tough little ships” (an endearing description Commander William T. Riker [Jonathan Frakes] bestowed upon the U.S.S. Defiant in First Contact) in their respective conflicts, namely the U.S.S. Defiant from Deep Space Nine and the Tantive IV from A New Hope. VisionArt had already built a CG Defiant for the Deep Space Nine series, but ILM upgraded the model with images gathered from the ship’s three-foot physical model. A similar tactic was taken to bring the Tantive IV into the digital realm for Rogue One. “This was the Blockade Runner. This was the most accurate 1:1 reproduction we could possibly have made,” model supervisor Russell Paul declared to Cinefex’s Joe Fordham. “We did an extensive photo reference shoot and photogrammetry re-creation of the miniature. From there, we built it out as accurately as possible.” Speaking of sturdy ships, if you look very closely, you can spot a model of the Millennium Falcon flashing across the background as the U.S.S. Defiant makes an attack run on the Borg cube at the Battle of Sector 001! Exploration and Hope The in-universe ramifications that materialize from the Battles of Sector 001 and Scarif are monumental. The destruction of the Borg cube compels the Borg Queen to travel back in time in an attempt to vanquish Earth before the Federation can even be formed, but Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E foil the plot and end up helping their 21st century ancestors make “first contact” with another species, the logic-revering Vulcans. The post-Scarif benefits take longer to play out for the Rebel Alliance, but the theft of the Death Star plans eventually leads to the superweapon’s destruction. The Galactic Civil War is far from over, but Scarif is a significant step in the Alliance’s effort to overthrow the Empire. The visual effects ILM provided for First Contact and Rogue One contributed significantly to the critical and commercial acclaim both pictures enjoyed, a victory reflecting the relentless dedication, tireless work ethic, and innovative spirit embodied by visual effects supervisor John Knoll and ILM’s entire staff. While being interviewed for The Making of Star Trek: First Contact, actor Patrick Stewart praised ILM’s invaluable influence, emphasizing, “ILM was with us, on this movie, almost every day on set. There is so much that they are involved in.” And, regardless of your personal preferences – phasers or lasers, photon torpedoes or proton torpedoes, warp speed or hyperspace – perhaps Industrial Light & Magic’s ability to infuse excitement into both franchises demonstrates that Star Trek and Star Wars encompass themes that are not competitive, but compatible. After all, what goes together better than exploration and hope? – Jay Stobie (he/him) is a writer, author, and consultant who has contributed articles to ILM.com, Skysound.com, Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com, Star Trek Explorer, Star Trek Magazine, and StarTrek.com. Jay loves sci-fi, fantasy, and film, and you can learn more about him by visiting JayStobie.com or finding him on Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms at @StobiesGalaxy.

Microsoft offered up a fairly light Patch Tuesday release this month, with 68 patches to Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. There were no updates for Exchange or SQL server and just two minor patches for Microsoft Edge. That said, two zero-day vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-33073 and CVE-2025-33053) have led to a “Patch Now” recommendation for both Windows and Office. (Developers can follow their usual release cadence with updates to Microsoft .NET and Visual Studio.) To help navigate these changes, the team from Readiness has provided auseful  infographic detailing the risks involved when deploying the latest updates. (More information about recent Patch Tuesday releases is available here.) Known issues Microsoft released a limited number of known issues for June, with a product-focused issue and a very minor display concern: Microsoft Excel: This a rare product level entry in the “known issues” category — an advisory that “square brackets” or [] are not supported in Excel filenames. An error is generated, advising the user to remove the offending characters. Windows 10: There are reports of blurry or unclear CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) text when displayed at 96 DPI (100% scaling) in Chromium-based browsers such as Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome. This is a limited resource issue, as the font resolution in Windows 10 does not fully match the high-level resolution of the Noto font. Microsoft recommends changing the display scaling to 125% or 150% to improve clarity. Major revisions and mitigations Microsoft might have won an award for the shortest time between releasing an update and a revision with: CVE-2025-33073: Windows SMB Client Elevation of Privilege. Microsoft worked to address a vulnerability where improper access control in Windows SMB allows an attacker to elevate privileges over a network. This patch was revised on the same day as its initial release (and has been revised again for documentation purposes). Windows lifecycle and enforcement updates Microsoft did not release any enforcement updates for June. Each month, the Readiness team analyzes Microsoft’s latest updates and provides technically sound, actionable testing plans. While June’s release includes no stated functional changes, many foundational components across authentication, storage, networking, and user experience have been updated. For this testing guide, we grouped Microsoft’s updates by Windows feature and then accompanied the section with prescriptive test actions and rationale to help prioritize enterprise efforts. Core OS and UI compatibility Microsoft updated several core kernel drivers affecting Windows as a whole. This is a low-level system change and carries a high risk of compatibility and system issues. In addition, core Microsoft print libraries have been included in the update, requiring additional print testing in addition to the following recommendations: Run print operations from 32-bit applications on 64-bit Windows environments. Use different print drivers and configurations (e.g., local, networked). Observe printing from older productivity apps and virtual environments. Remote desktop and network connectivity This update could impact the reliability of remote access while broken DHCP-to-DNS integration can block device onboarding, and NAT misbehavior disrupts VPNs or site-to-site routing configurations. We recommend the following tests be performed: Create and reconnect Remote Desktop (RDP) sessions under varying network conditions. Confirm that DHCP-assigned IP addresses are correctly registered with DNS in AD-integrated environments. Test modifying NAT and routing settings in RRAS configurations and ensure that changes persist across reboots. Filesystem, SMB and storage Updates to the core Windows storage libraries affect nearly every command related to Microsoft Storage Spaces. A minor misalignment here can result in degraded clusters, orphaned volumes, or data loss in a failover scenario. These are high-priority components in modern data center and hybrid cloud infrastructure, with the following storage-related testing recommendations: Access file shares using server names, FQDNs, and IP addresses. Enable and validate encrypted and compressed file-share operations between clients and servers. Run tests that create, open, and read from system log files using various file and storage configurations. Validate core cluster storage management tasks, including creating and managing storage pools, tiers, and volumes. Test disk addition/removal, failover behaviors, and resiliency settings. Run system-level storage diagnostics across active and passive nodes in the cluster. Windows installer and recovery Microsoft delivered another update to the Windows Installer (MSI) application infrastructure. Broken or regressed Installer package MSI handling disrupts app deployment pipelines while putting core business applications at risk. We suggest the following tests for the latest changes to MSI Installer, Windows Recovery and Microsoft’s Virtualization Based Security (VBS): Perform installation, repair, and uninstallation of MSI Installer packages using standard enterprise deployment tools (e.g. Intune). Validate restore point behavior for points older than 60 days under varying virtualization-based security (VBS) settings. Check both client and server behaviors for allowed or blocked restores. We highly recommend prioritizing printer testing this month, then remote desktop deployment testing to ensure your core business applications install and uninstall as expected. Each month, we break down the update cycle into product families (as defined by Microsoft) with the following basic groupings:  Browsers (Microsoft IE and Edge); Microsoft Windows (both desktop and server); Microsoft Office; Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server;  Microsoft Developer Tools (Visual Studio and .NET); And Adobe (if you get this far). Browsers Microsoft delivered a very minor series of updates to Microsoft Edge. The  browser receives two Chrome patches (CVE-2025-5068 and CVE-2025-5419) where both updates are rated important. These low-profile changes can be added to your standard release calendar. Microsoft Windows Microsoft released five critical patches and (a smaller than usual) 40 patches rated important. This month the five critical Windows patches cover the following desktop and server vulnerabilities: Missing release of memory after effective lifetime in Windows Cryptographic Services (WCS) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use after free in Windows Remote Desktop Services allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use after free in Windows KDC Proxy Service (KPSSVC) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use of uninitialized resources in Windows Netlogon allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network. Unfortunately, CVE-2025-33073 has been reported as publicly disclosed while CVE-2025-33053 has been reported as exploited. Given these two zero-days, the Readiness recommends a “Patch Now” release schedule for your Windows updates. Microsoft Office Microsoft released five critical updates and a further 13 rated important for Office. The critical patches deal with memory related and “use after free” memory allocation issues affecting the entire platform. Due to the number and severity of these issues, we recommend a “Patch Now” schedule for Office for this Patch Tuesday release. Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server There are no updates for either Microsoft Exchange or SQL Server this month.  Developer tools There were only three low-level updates (product focused and rated important) released, affecting .NET and Visual Studio. Add these updates to your standard developer release schedule. Adobe (and 3rd party updates) Adobe has released (but Microsoft has not co-published) a single update to Adobe Acrobat (APSB25-57). There were two other non-Microsoft updated releases affecting the Chromium platform, which were covered in the Browser section above.