[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [consortium] Re: [x3d-public] dedicated working-group focus on X3D interoperability



Well, we have to figure out a way to satisfy both communities.

IMHO, the Consortium has catered mostly to the latter group, i.e. those that want to make Virtual Worlds or Applications. If you want widespread use and adoption of X3D, you will have to put significantly more emphasis on the former group, your so called 3D HTML community. Without these people, who can generate significant amounts of creative content, X3D is relegated to a boutique or niche status, which is where we are fighting to move it from at this moment.

Thanks,

Mike Aratow, MD, FACEP
Vice Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, San Mateo Medical Center
Treasurer Web3D Consortium

At 10:07 AM 12/20/2006, Alan Hudson wrote:
John A. Stewart wrote:
Don;
Congratulations on this working group, and of the moratorium on new
nodes. Most certainly, the number of nodes in X3D, and the rate they
are being placed, is staggering.
Can I email my thoughts on this?
Athough FreeWRL tries to support as many nodes as possible, I think
that the X3D "problem" could be solved differently. This view comes
from many years of hacking about with FreeWRL.
Quite simply put, all of the Triangle and *2D nodes could be dispensed
with. Same with some others. Focus should be on optimization techniques
to render shapes quickly, on given hardware.
What we appear to be doing is to move that optimization level up the  food
chain; making our job easier. That's not correct - we should be making
the job of the authors (and, authoring programs) easier.
Two cents American back to ya :)

A big driver for providing the Triangle* nodes and the Shaders is that a lot of our users are actually fairly savy graphics wise. They desire some fairly low level control. I've seen so many worlds that try to create dynamic geometry with an IndexedFaceSet. IFS is a good transport format. Its a lowsy programming construct. Deconstructing it requires a lot of cycles. Removing -1's is a pain. Several rules like normal generation, texture generation etc are expensive.

We have two very different user communites to support. One I call the 3D HTML community. They want 3D graphics and want it as a easy to produce as HTML. The other community is a group of programmers that want to make Virtual Worlds or Applications. This is a much harder group to please. Over time they eventually want access to the underlying graphics system. We've abstracted a good chunk away, but in general its never enough.

The best content teams I've seen have had at least one of those programmer types. They pull out at the magic when needed. If X3D doesn't allow that then X3D worlds will not look nearly as good as other technologies.

But in general I agree with you. For most things let the browser optimize it for you.

--
Alan Hudson

President Yumetech, Inc.                               www.yumetech.com
President Web3D Consortium                             www.web3d.org
206 340 8900
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
for list subscription/unsubscription,
go to http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/public_list_signup/lwgate/listsavail.html