Slashdot Mirror
Review Of 3D Web Browsers
shelflife points to this very intersting article on the 3D Web browsers in Scientific American. He writes that of the 3D systems mentioned, "A Swiss company, Geonova (www.geonova.ch), seems to demonstrate best that the idea of a geography-based Web is feasible with today's PCs. Engineers there created two impressively detailed models of Switzerland--one of the entire nation with 25-meter resolution and another of two central cantons at 50-centimeter resolution. .. Text and iconic labels hovered quite legibly above towns, lakes, companies and tourist attractions; clicking on the labels opened associated Web pages. What other 3D browsers are there -- VRML plugins have been around a while -- yet they do not seem to be successful. Why is that?"
Web-based communication is largely interpreted, as opposed to compiled. Are there any successful examples of high-performance interpreted 3D out there?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
yuck, the reason why they don't work are because they're slow and don't benifit any. Even most 'regular' people don't want to surf the net by clicking through an interface that looks like a town. Even if it does look nice, the fun wears off after running around in your own little virtual town when you notice that it takes twice as long to find information.
This is just web masturbation. 3 D web browsers are neither a technical accomplishment nor do they lead to greater efficiency on the web.
Besides, if anything like this is going to happen, it will be through plugins like Flash.
even the article mentions that one of the main reasons that VRML is not in wide use is b/c of the "getting lost" factor. People just aren't accustomed to the way that VRML represents the page. It was also noted in the page that text and VRML don't mix well together.
;)
Apparently that's why this new fangled browser is better for 3D viewing.
I myself am quite happy w/the current status of the web but who knows what joy this could bring to seat selections for concert venues, etc
Why aren't VRML plugins used more?
1. It's slow.
2. No real or perceived value-add from using it. Why should I switch to a 3D filesystem browser, for example, when what I have works just fine?
Make it faster and give us a good reason to use it, and it might get more widespread use.
"This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
I'm not too impressed with anything I've seen from VRML, but Adobe's Atmoshpere was a bit of an eye opener. Check it out yourself at Adobe's Site ... free to play with while it's in beta. I haven't personally developed for this yet, but I hear it's quite intuitive. As a bonus, you have site-specific chat. Now if they will just add site-specific-VoIP I will start taking a more active interest, but for now I think all of this 3d Browser stuff is a bit academic as noone has found any particualarly good use for this stuff yet (at least nothing that the mainstream surfer is going to clamour for).
This isn't a flame, but the answer is simply that nobody likes VRML. People think that things are successful because of some other force than people like something. This can be true in rare cases (huge marketing campaigns like Nike's can change what people want), but ultimately, if something isn't successful, then it is because people don't want it.
The real question is: why don't people like VRML? Well, load it up yourself and view 3D worlds. Now play Quake. The VRML experience is unsatisfying, but Quake is fun.
Here are some basic reasons why VRML fails to stimulate people:
The real answer is that 3D has taken over the world and become the driving force behind computers (e.g. 3D cards in computers have more gates than CPUs). The 3D market has expanded hugely fast. There are those that figured out how to catch the wave (John Carmack @ Id) and those that failed to grok what was going on (Mark Piesce w/ VRML). One of these days we'll see some interesting 3D technology added to browsers; it won't look like VRML, it might look like Quake/Doom or Flight Simulator, or it might be something completely different.
teh only thing stopping us is our imagination (or lack of it)
The demo is really neet - it's worth firing up a Windows box. As you fly around, the system feeds you better and better textures for the ground. Unfortunatly, it seems that it dumps the good textrues as soon as you fly away too far. The user interface works ok - user '-' and '+' on the numeric keypad to change elevations.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Where would we "go" to find porn? I bet someone will put an e-whoreHouse in a country like Afghanistan or something just for fun.
------
Sig
I think in practice it has turned out that mechanisms like a folding tree and a tabbed window are more effective and easier to use for interacting with the kinds of data we deal with. Our current 2D interfaces require less user interaction and intervention and display more useful and related information than a system that is constrained by trying to conform to the rules of 3D objects. The closest to 3D we have come in user interfaces is zoomable UIs, but even there the jury is still out whether that is actually useful in practice.
(I once saw a beautiful map of Mount McKinley; looking in the corner, it was actually done by the same Office.)
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Well, it doesn't _HAVE_ to be interpreted. One reason FLASH runs so well (considering all the real-time vector that it has to do) is because it's compiled. Solutions like VRML will never work (IMHO) because of the fact that they're interpreted. (Yes, I know some of you think it's this huge hog, but my PII350 runs all but the lamest FLASH at full speed).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Does anyone remember this same sort of thing that Worlds (www.worlds.net) failed to do a long time ago.
3-D chat worlds are cool, but they are not as easy and efficient as IRC or Instant Messaging.
--Nicholas
There is no VRML porn.
'nuff said.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
I think VRML failed because it was not as easily understood by the mass market. Anyone and their dog can set up a HTML page, and they usually do, but to do a VRML page they have to use a computing metaphor that most consumers and even geeks can't understand.
Interior Decorating.
What is it? You can't ask a geek to make you a stylish personal home on the web. Its just not feasable because they spent their lives reclusively, with clutter all over the room and with clean elegance on the paper products they make. Sure there is an elite few who can make WAD files already, but they cannot easily pass this knowledge on to the masses.
Speaking of WADs, there is the difficulty in scripting events in VRML. You need a plug-in for a static language that doesn't even offer realistic doors or interaction with monsters. Where's the fun in a 10 meg download that doesn't even offer you a gun or sword or knife? VRML came out about the same time as games which for the first time offered Deathmatch mode, so it was sadly feature-poor for its size.
If they could re-make VRML as a familiar XML-style language with some support for java and javascript, then all you would need is a good Frontpage equivalent and free interior decorating or painting courses on the web.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
It's a facinating new era of data navigation, doing away with the old screens and screens of text and moving towards a paradigm closer to the real world.
3D has its place but every metaphor where someone has tried to make the virtual world mirror the physical one has sucked in a big way. I don't care that a web page is in Sweden or California or Canada. I just care that it has the information I want on it. Find a metaphor that organizes information in a useful fashion in 3D and I might be interested. As has been mentioned, without a 3D input device and a 3D display, it'd still be a pain to navigate it, though.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What about things like QuickTime VR? Although it's not quite the same experience, it's pretty easy to create a multi-node QuickTime VR panorma and it's much truer to the original.
Gimmicks are not based on the needs of those who reside in reality. Reading text is a two dimensional effort. QED.
A lot of people do not want to see any graphics on the web, muchless have everything represented as an image. Sure, I can show you a picture of a box faster than I can describe one, but the web can not do that yet on any type of large scale.Maybe when we all have broadband, maybe never. I vote for never.
Oh my God, I was just about to say the same thing about Linux. Creepy.
The article states that 3d browsing is more intuitive. Bah. A moment's thought should make it plain that web browsing is in fact ONE-dimensional. Forward and Back. Adding up, down, and sideways dimensions is not very helpful.
Anyway, frames and stuff can give you something like multi-dimensional functionality, and you can already get a similar effect just by opening up multiple browsers. I'.m not installing some sluggish bloatware just so I can have a k3wl skeleton avatar.
Or did we forget about Sklyarov and the dangerous precedent his arrest establishes?
What does "toia mi miri6e" mean?
Since the fastest leaps forward with regards to 3D graphics rendering are being made on the games console front, I wonder if Nintendo or Sony are considering putting this on one of their future internet capable consoles. This would've been pretty damn impressive on my dc, or maybe they could combine a later chapter of Shenmue with this technology...?
There has been a major debates by people who don't understand XML that say that it will replace HTML. We all know that they are completely different beasts. Same with 2d and 3d browsing.
3d is cool, but it isn't going to replace 2d. It has it's place.
offtopic section, but the above is ONTOPIC.
On Monday everyone buy stuff! Spread the word on IRC, on Instant Message, on the phone, on Usenet, on any other newsgroups. Spread the word by phone, by word of mouth. EVERYONE buy stuff tomorrow. Buy a book, buy computer equipment, buy stuff!!!
-- "You used your dictaphone to post, didn't you?"
VRML remains limited by the fact there is no reliable complete set of tools available. A developer cannot author, debug and present VRML across a complete set of standards-compliant applications (authoring system, graphics accelerators/drivers, browser).
I've always been very intrigued by VRML, and I tried to work with it on several occasions, but it just flat doesn't work, because there is always some major technological problem with either the authoring system or the browser.
Just another $0.02 ^^
She wanted this to be the main interface for the site, even for dialups. This was a time that 14.4 was still somewhat common, although they were dropping out.
She had no problems making it run quickly over the LAN, of course, to her hot top of the line box, but had lost sight of the fact of dialup speeds. Her file was 1 meg, and growing. When I informed her of the typical 14.4 speed (14.4 = roughly 100k/minute under the best conditions) she flipped. This would be ten minutes to load on a 14.4 modem. Even with a 56k modem, that would be 2.5 minutes to load.
Then you load the next page.
Yes, I know of pages with 1 meg java script files.
I think this is part of the two different design philosophies. One is to design for everyone, the most users possible. The other is to design for the power users, for the elite, the people who have the hottest software with the hottest hardware, etc.
The widest adoption requires the moving away from designing for hi end. but them you get the old arguement that if everyone has it, it is obsolete.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The terrorism that the US experienced was a government conspiracy. Think about it. Why would the terrorists leave clues as obvious as the Koran, a flight manual in Arabic, and other things at the airport? Why has nobody claimed responsibility for this? Why would they go through the trouble of doing this if they weren't going to claim responsibility? Why would Bin Laden say that he's not responsible? Isn't a coincidence that this happened as soon as Bush got in office? Wouldn't a war help the economy (they always do)? Is it time to revolt???
It's not just the web. Why do people still watch 2D movies and read 2D books? Why are so many top seller computer games 2D (SimCity, Civilization, Roller Coaster Tycoon)?
Your eyes view the world in 2D (plus depth), not full 3D. Monitors are 2D. Trying to stuff a 3D world through a 2D pipe means you lose data. For example, unless you're a hyperdimensional being, you can't see what's behind something without rearranging the data. It's "cool" but it's also a pain at times. If there's no good need/benefit for 3D, then using 3D is often worse than the 2D version. Most everything I do on the web doesn't benefit from 3D. I'd rather get the 2D version.
Read Jakob Nielsen for more thoughts on 3D vs. 2D.
- Amit
Having just come back from Interlakken, Swiss, I was quite suprised that I was able to recreate my view from the town with amazing accuracy. I could actually retrace my steps throungh town. Cool!
The XML solution on the horizon is X3D. This has a much better chance of being a useful 3D markup language because in most cases it would be only one representation of the base data among a set of alterantives including vector graphics (SVG) and XHTML.
Even thou Vrml worlds are neat, most attempts have been to copy a mud or moo. Make buildings, claim some land for yourself, look at the pretty ads.
I want content, news, files, mp3, chat, something other than a landscape of nothing.
Id like to see a true representation of the Internet, nodes, routers, servers, etc. I want to travel along, stop at google, search, and take the paths from each search. Goto Slashdot and see other people reading/posting and maybe interact. Use Gnucleus and see the packets of data flow from my workstation and back out onto the network.
I want to see the Internet turned into virtual reality. Not a mud/moo in vrml.
Atmosphere? Sounds great... unless you have Linux. Or a Mac. Or anything but Windows. You know, there was a time when Adobe released stuff for non-Microsoft OS's...
My sig is too lon
For the last couple of years I worked at a
:)
3D Browser company called CYBERWORLD. It's more of a Wolf3D engine, but it's really easy to put worlds together.
Quite frequently I kept tabs on what the competition was doing. Adobe atmosphere is like Active Worlds, only worse.
If it's games in 3D you're looking for, you want to look at WildTangent which is pretty good. They have a couple game companies lined up.
The best one I've seen is Shockwave3D by Macromedia. It requires programming knowledge but it's better than a lot of the others. You can use shaders and pretty much do whatever you want. Plus there are a lot of sites out there already using it.
CYBERWORLD http://www.cyberworldcorp.com
browser
PC
"It's boxy, but nice"
Active Worlds http://www.activeworlds.com
browser
PC
Multiuser Server where you aquire land and build whatever you want on it.
Wild Tangent http://www.wildtangent.com/
Plugin
As far as I know PC
They have a few games which are fun to play. Not too sure about making stuff in it.
Adobe Astro
browser
As far as I know PC
Looks like Active Worlds, but is less stable and if your avatar isn't the right height, you can't walk up stairs. If it's not the right width, you can't walk through doors.
Shockwave3D
Plugin (If you're on windows, you probably have it)
Mac & PC
Requires programming knowledge but has a great 3D engine.
Those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head. There are a few more out there that are lesser known.
VRML is a good idea but it lacks a good rendering engine (because no ones done it) if you could take the quake 3 and rid it of the violence and killing use the physics and graphics engines to create an environment that users can walk around and interact with one another where you can somewhat easily create a custom avatar, hell you could integrate it w/ quake, have a room you enter and suddenly your in a battle and can go around killing one another, I dunno if one could make a q3 mod that would be able to 'link' to other sites using portals and display text in some sort of floating paper.
I'm just throwing out my incoherent thoughts been up too long and just want throw out some ideas as I am a big advocate of VRML and have done quite a lot of modeling id love to see some kinda of 3D cyberspace, any one read snow crash? Yea that type of stuff is out their on the web but its not immerseive nor can it handle 'doing something' to a regular HTML file if you are surfing along and hit one you cant expect everyone to rewrite every web page to support a new way.
I remember something for Mac's a few years back apple was developing called hot sauce or something similar to it that would allow one to browse the web in 3D I was working on a similar project at the time to allow 3D exploration of ones file system on Mac's using that system I'll see if I can any other info on it and post it later
This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
1) Designing for the masses. Let's assume that everyone wants to have VMRL content, and that it has been sucessfully publicized and standardized just like Flash has grown into a Internet-wide phenomenon. Even then, you have the issue of file sizes. Like it or not, the majority of the United States runs on dialup. The demonstration world didn't take long to load, but it didn't have much in the way of detailed textures either. Also, I could see my CPU usage flying up which means that one simple world puts a lot of stress as is. Imagine what happens if people try to open multiple browser windows. The combination of bandwidth and system requirements are hard to find. Face it, most /.ers don't use 233-Mhz systems like I know many of my friends do.
2) Number one is an ideal world that will never make it for the following reasons: content.
For the geographical view of Switzerland, I don't find much that I couldn't find on a map. The 3-d certainly adds a nice perspective, but little detail.
I myself visited Switzerland this previous summer, and this world lacks many of the things I wish to see in an overview. My browser couldn't show me the beautiful clouds embracing Mount Pilatus, nor the grass rippling in the wind, nor the diehard runners sprinting up the mountain. These things aren't seen despite the 30 meter accuracy.
Also, if you go into a town with a browser, you don't get what you would normally see. VMRL worlds are hard to create, even more so accurately. Pictures (including those cool panoramic 360's) capture the feeling more accurately. Also, it would be pointless to look through shops and such because the user would get lost.
Which leads to my final point: Assuming tourists like these 3-d worlds, what about websites such as Slashdot and CNET News.com? Would talking people at newsstands give you the news to read? Would bullet points point out where the news occured? How would these be updated every day, or even every hour? Nothing is practical, and the Internet is about information. There is nothing special if the experience is only a recreation of the real world- nothing can ever match that. The Internet is about arranging all the information in a new fashion that makes more sense that what you get away from the computer.
How many people in the world know anything about the geography of Antartica? Just the few scientists who live there ... that's who.
And what has mapping the net onto a map of Antartica got to do with anything??? I'm looking for information about carbohydrates, say;
Am I going to type "carbohydrates" into google, or am suddenly going to realise that all my answers are to be found on Filchner Island on the North coast(*) of Antartica ???
(*) and how does the geography of Antartica work anyway?? Every coast is the bloody north coast.
I've seen added value. The lab I work in does some modelling of protein movements. We can use multigifs or MPEGs, but this limits the viewer to the angles we incorporate. With VRML, you can view the protein from any angle. This is something that is of interest to people in the field- I don't think standard molecular graphics packages support this type of application.
Unfortunately changing VRML standards have broken all our files, and we do not intend to replace it. All of our content is created automatically on a Linux server, ruling out pretty much any alternative (and many of our viewers will use non-Windows platforms). For a good idea what VRML can be used for, though, look at the Protein Data Bank website. Try '1tim' as the search key- click on the 'view structure' link. They've done a fabulous job with this.
3D Browser? For the love of god, keep that thing away from goatse.cx!!! It's bad enough as it is...
*Shudder*
Just because something can be 3D doesn't mean it should be. This applies quite a bit to desktops and browsers.
For a lot of things a 3D interface is just too cubersome and slows you down. Why 'fly' through a modelled tunnel to follow a link in 10 seconds rather than just click some text on a web page in 1/10th of a second?
Sure, there's a place for online 3D virtual community chat -- MMORPGs proved this, as just sitting around chatting is what they do best (most don't really have much of a game there other than kill monster, get xp, kill other monster that looks slightly different, repeat forever). But trying to integrate the whole browser (or desktop) experience into 3D is insane.
Some things just work better in 2D, just like some things just work better with a CLI, just like some things work better with dedicated devices rather than general purpose computers...
The web is organized by TOPICs (that is, web pages tend to be devoted to one sort of information)...and while that does include geography, things that can be organized that way are only a tiny fraction of what's out there.
But people looking for a car dealership in a particular town might think...oooh, cool! Except that any 3D game is likely to be way cooler. So what's the point?
Text-based directories for local areas are easy to find, don't open up as much possibility of putting things in the wrong place, if stuff like this 3D thing were generated automagically. They're probably easier to search, too.
The reason this won't succeed, and none will for a long time, is that they aren't especially useful, cause more problems than they solve (what problem is this supposed to solve again?) and require people to go get extra software.
If we're going to see 3D web browsing in the near future, I'm betting it will be through Flash, as that is software that DOES do something relatively useful (if you like watching cartoons) and is already widely distributed.
Try making a 3-D website accessible for someone with visual or physical handicaps. It's hard enough for someone without handicaps to conceptualize and navigate 3-D spaces. I've seen many people who didn't grow up playing video games fail try to run through a complicated room in Quake... now you expect them to get content this way? For those who don't have every facility available to them these interfaces are just not useful. But, I also think we need to work on improving this... I'm not saying that 3-D navigation shouldn't become a standard eventually; but just not now. The human/computer interfaces and technologies are just not up to snuff.
"Grok" is not a real word. It comes from Heinlein's sci-fi book "Stranger in a Strange Land" where, conveniently, it was never really defined (because it was a "martian" word). It has commonly been defined as "getting it".
Unfortunately, "getting it" isn't very well-defined either. Most people seem to define "getting it" or "grokking it" as "agreeing with me." For instance:
VRML didn't grok "cyberspace"
VRML didn't agree with my idea of "cyberspace"
So although the "Why not VRML" post is pretty intelligent, use of the word "grok" by the post's author and a number of other 'geeks' is not. Rather, 'grok' has become merely a euphamistic way to cover the arrogance of the person who is using the word.
Dang. He must be a really interesting subject ; )
You overestimate everyone's intelligence. The terrorists left the stuff at the airport because they are stupid. There is no conspiracy because no one is smart enough to pull it off.
Somewhat different computing paradigm. The VRML file contains "sensors" which trigger events that are processed by scripts. In other words, the data drives the code instead of the code driving the data.
It's the same paradigm HTML and Doom use. An HTML file contains "links" which trigger events that are processed by scripts. A WAD file contains "lines" which trigger events that are processed by scripts.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Am I the only one who tried flying over the swiss mountains upside-down? (Use arrow keys into invert self)
They could send us poisonous maple syrup, or give us heart attacks by making us eat Canadian bacon.
Navigation sucks because of a few reasons.
t +VRML)
First, streamlined 3D engines and interfaces at first leave VRML's capabilities in the dust.
Second, it's not the way a user should interact with a 3D world. Take these cool files at NIST as an example (http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/ and http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/exc/excanim4.wrl). The camera is totally non-intrusive and self managing. The focus is not on wandering around a 3D world searching for hyperlinks, but interacting with the environment. This conveniently segues into another problem: stale design.
Many 3D sites are just static worlds filled with hyperlinked objects. That's not 3D. That's text-based layout transferred to 3D format.
Imagine sitting on a stylized van, touring a company as text and images are streamed onto a virtual dashboard. You could hear and interact with smart agent-based AI, and chat/share files with other riders. None of those technologies are new, in fact, all are established.
Can you honestly tell me it's not worth the time to integrate them (some of those functions already work in VRML) if that is the result? Not just a belabored, lonely trundle through a 3D world, but choosing your destination with an on-screen map, interacting with other people. That's 3D. And sadly, 3D web will NOT go mainstream until we get there.
(On the plus side, people are doing really productive things with VRML in science; run this google search to see what I mean: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Human+Projec
I don't find Quake fun. I find it cramps my hands and arms, and gives me vertigo. Same with all first-person shooters. Plus I find it boring after about 15 minutes.
A 3D world would require some way of getting past this barrier. One of the main problems with all 3D interfaces I have seen (including games) is the sheer amount of fine motor control required for very long periods of time.
Instead, new input methods will be required before 3D interfaces can become a truly integral part of the net. I don't know what these methods will be, but I bet the initial ones will be based off eye movement (there are already knowledgebase systems in use in some places based on eye movement - for example, for mechanics who have the data on a HUD and use eye movement for moving pages, leaving both hands free).
Now, Arcanum - that's fun! Over 120 hours so far, and I've just started it for a third time (I haven't even finished once yet - I keep going "Wow! I wonder what it would be like to play that part of the game as a <insert gender><insert race ><insert character stereotype>).
Jakob Nielsen has a collumn (actually, it was published in 98) on why 2D is better than 3D. He is a professional in usability - he is a good source for the answer to this question.
I am not sure if it is true 3D or just isometric, but eventually everyone will have their own personalized eHouse, as opposed to a webpage.
The Sims Online is basically just that, an massively multiplayer online world, where people can build their own houses, and live virtual alternate lives as criminals, playboys, doctors, etc...
You can bet The Sims Online will become the next killer app for the internet. Just as the other killer apps (chat rooms, email, instant messaging) appeal to a large audience, The Sims appealed/appeals to a large audience. Making the game massively multiplayer is obviously the next level to take the game to, and Will Wright is the man for the job.
Everquest was too geeky for the mainstream, and chat rooms are too boring... The Sims Online? Now thats going to make allot of money!
q: why do sand niggers smell so bad?
a: so blind people can hate them too!
It is completely absurd that VRML does not compile to a standard binary format. This is why it never caught on.
Calculating 3d spaces is expensive, and yet, the VRML designers expected everyone to do this _every_ _time_ _they_ _loaded_ _the_ _page_. (Yes, that was meant to be tedious, that's the point.)
If VRML compiled to a standard binary format, it would have had a chance. Nothing like it will catch on until it does.
Things started to go sour when the browser makers all jumped ahead of the 2.0 spec, introducing their own custom apis that made your content only work with their browser. Innovation is great, but I think the big players all tried to pull too hard in their own direction.
Just try and build a multi-user world that runs in your standard web browser that works with all VRML plugins out there -- it's a lot of work -- hence people rolled their own custom app to get all the toys they wanted for user interaction. It's hard to convince people to download 15 different 'browsers' to get all the offerings of the VRML community.
The way scripting and Java was implemented in the language seemed gaudy. VRML is quite pretty and a great learning tool for an introductory CG course. Then they threw in Java, and to me it just feels like a hack -- adding the capabilities of a generic programming language to a modeling language doesn't make as much sense to me as going the other way (e.g.: using java's 3d packages). ...not to mention it's a big pain to debug a combinatition of javascript, VRML and the Java-VRML api -- especially when you have different apis to work with each VRML browser.
Widespread adoption of 3D content on the net is going to take two things -- conformance in browsers, and ease of content generation. I don't think there's a language or spec out there that can provide this yet. WYSIWYG editors like (gag) frontpage have made html pages rediculously simple, perhaps what we're seeing as 'level editors' for current 3D shooters will turn into the 3D net content generators of tomorrow.
Maybe we don't need a standard for this yet -- the 3D industry will certainly keep chugging without VRML, and probably produce the right tools when the demand and capabilities are sufficient.
Navigating non-geographic information in 3D sucks.
First, there's the fact that just getting around in a 3D graphical world is hard. But more fundamentally, imposing a geographical structure on information imposes a taxonomy, like the Dewey Decimal System or the Yahoo hierarchy. If your needs don't map well to the hierarchy, searching is hard. This is why search engines and relational databases are more useful than flat indices.
The reason why 3D web browsers have not taken off is because 3D adds absolutely no value whatsoever to the activity of web browsing. To answer why, let's consider the broader question of: Why isn't interactive 3D everywhere? (ie- not just browsers)
The answer is that a spatial representation adds value only when you have spatial relationships that you can load with meaning. The meaning is part of the browsing task at hand, which means that the spatial relationships must be set-up case-by-case for each type of task that someone wants to do. One of the few situations that don't require special setup are where the task is no more than real spatial navigation - like an action game or a CFD stream function.
If you change the axes of the coordinate system from (Right,Up,Back) to (Manufacturer,Price,Item) then you now have some spatial relationships that are loaded with meaning ("higher" means "more expensive"). But you have a "space" that is no longer intuitively navigable. This is not to say that it is difficult to get around in, but that it is diffuclt to know where you are. When you find something that looks interesting, some careful thought is needed to figure out what it is that you've found in the source data. A trivial example, to be sure, but the problem becomes worse the more complicated the dataset is. (And you'd think that's where you'd need 3D the most.)
Web sites are organised by topic and if you can organise all the topics of human knowledge using only 3 spatial axes and still keep it navigable, then you've achieved what no-one else knows how to do. That is why 3D web browsing has not taken off. (There is an arbitrary relationship between physical server location and topics stored on it.)
As an aside, UI is a big issue too because it is easier for your brain to make sense of the space around it when you can physically turn your head to see everything around you. Another reason why a little monitor window in front of you is not going to blow anybody away. (Q3A excepted)
Life's a buffer; you can only get out of it what you put into it! C:-)
Ever look at the gamespot browser?
It sucks, but I can see some uses for it if the company behind it would simply make some authoring tools available, so you could create your own rooms in their format. I think the link sphere is esp cool...Visual bookmarks r0x0r j00r nUx0rs =p
..by far, the BEST 3D webn browser in existance right now..with the next version, 32, it will have ful support for software rendering, openGL, renderware and direct3d...plus, it has been populted for over five years, and is the LARGEST geographic virtual real estate (with one world being built in continuously for FIVE years, at the virtual size of CALIFORNIA with over 92 MILLION individual objects being built by regular people.....it is,t he utter BEST 3D browser on the internet today, hands down. Fuck worlds, fuck VRML, something like THIS is the future.
ACTIVEWORLDS
That's just it! They are slow. And I don't only mean they usually recuire high-bandwidth lines to load up with an acceptable time, but the human mind is slower at processing 3D data than 2D. Presenting your data in a 3D environment requires much more from the human interpreter.
And the fact that they don't add any value is the second most important issue why they haven't been a break-through. The only real use for 3D models what I can think of right now are science models, ie. models of atoms or DNA.
But in our everyday lives we don't have the time, don't want and don't care about 3D environments.
The main problem I see with the adoption of VRML or any 3D navigation system is: a keyboard and mouse do not translate well to a 3D world. Perhaps when voice recognition really gets here, that would go away -- "Computer, show me my office. Bring up that document over in that filing cabinet. Thanks." And, maybe that webcam on top of your monitor watches your eye movements and analyzes facial expression. I know these technologies are being developed, but they aren't here in terms of consumer quality. I do not believe we will be able to leave the flat page user interfaces until we quit using flat page human interfaces.
As far as I can tell, VRML was trying to be both Inventor and HTML. This was before XML got big, with people routinely using that sort of format for non-text. Inventor was a pain to actually view, and it influenced too many 3D viewers; VRML was watered down from Inventor, as well.
There's now a good example of a XML-based graphics format which is at least usable, and which will probably gain substantial browser support (even if it doesn't become popular to actually use for a while). A vector graphics format, as well, is a good basis for a 3D format, because the user will be able to change the size of objects by getting closer or farther away. Extending SVG into 3 dimensions shouldn't be too difficult; it would require 3D primitives, of course, and people would have to figure out a useful user interface, but the first is relatively trivial and the second is a universal problem.
Wait, are you sure that's a good idea? I mean, we don't know what the White House is planning, and we might have a large military buildup soon, and I'm not sure that sucking up more resources in a show of consumer confidence would be helpful. When we go to war, we're supposed to buy LESS, not more, right? Doing without so that our boys in the trenches have more to fight with?
various research firms and government research organizations (yes, there are people who get paid taxpayer dollars to play around with search engines and 3d engines and stuff) have been trying to come up with an effective method of visualizing information (e.g. text, filesystems, etc) in 3d for many years.
in my opinion, these browsers are neat as a novelty, but beyond that they aren't that useful. if browser people (mozilla team, opera team, konqueror people, microsoft, etc etc etc) worked on improving the user experience in existing products, we'd be doing just fine. having better information to display in the first place would help, too.
here's a link that should give you a good overview of information visualization that the government is sponsoring. this should help, too.
Not just because you interact with the computer using 2D, but 99% of the time, the media you will be reciving is 2D. E.G. text images, video, and music well, music dosn't realy fit, but you know what I mean).
So from end user, to the data, it usaly goes like this:
3D (real world) > 2D (computer) > 2D (the data).
A 3d browser seems to do this:
3D > 2D > 3D > 2D
SO at the moment, there isn't much point. It's kinda like an extra convertion one has to go though to get the info.
If the data at the end was 3D, then probably, a 3D browser could offer advantages.
Not matter how hard I try. I just can think of a 2D > 3D system or concept as an interface for 2D data that would be better than a 2D interface.
Any advantage to a 3D interface is lost cause the first interface (the computer) is 2D.
Sorry if this gets in twice, server probs...
What other 3D browsers are there -- VRML plugins have been around a while -- yet they do not seem to be successful. Why is that?"
That's easy to answer: do you want to spend 99% of your time travelling from link to link by 'walking' to portals and gateways? It's tedious having to wait till your avatar reaches a place. With a 2D browser, you click on a link and you're done. You want to get from place to place as fast as possible, that's why people spend lots of money to upgrade to something like ADSL.
Consider Slashdot as an example. The content here is text. Adding 3D support to Slashdot wouldn't add anything except complexity. Going beyond Slashdot, as I think about the web pages I frequent, I don't think a 3D experience would make my browsing any more satisfactory.. in fact, I'd be more worried about more sites turning into 3D versions of a bad flash-enabled site. (We've all been there.. do you click the spinning circle or the pulsating triangle to get to the next page? -- the link was down when I checked, but I assume it will be back up soon.. )
So, while I agree with everyone else about it being harder to make 3D sites, and that there's no good, modern language standard for doing 3D web work, I think the real reason is simply that the content on the web (most, not all) just isn't suited for 3D. --XaXXon
All of this talk about 3D worlds being slow... I just want good heads up gear to become affordable. I would spent $300+ for a good head display if it meant virtual immersion. I believe it to be great when schools - like psu http://viz.cac.psu.edu/ invest in virtual projects. We can already see the future of VR, it will be based on technology that allows images to be overlayed onto your cornia and allow you to see the world around you while surfing the web... - the post that I'm referencing should be in the /. achives.
I'm looking forward to VR-Web based pages expecially with widespead highspeed internet access and faster systems. What is really needed is a refining of the code.
-0- Who cares what H.A.L. thinks, lets just turn him off.... Hello Dave, would you like some air today? -0-
As the power flows in, the screen grows warm, another day starts, I'm at work again...
I use a 3d file system browser (fsv) and I find the different view leads to insights.
using 2d & 3d space to represent sizes of directories & files helps you see what's going on at a glance without having to drill down all your directories etc.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
http://www.ordsvy.gov.uk/
Sell 1:25000 maps of the UK, which you can find in any bookshop in the UK. They have individual houses marked. Of course if you pay proper money, you can get 1:1250 scale maps of towns, showing the shapes of each building or 1:10000 scale maps of mountains.
From commercial vendors such as www.qas.com you can get the grid coordinates of every delivery point (postal address) in the country to 10cm resolution. And of course aerial photographs of most of the country are available on the web.
Look at www.upmystreet.co.uk for information about any area in the UK (e.g. maths results for the local schools etc.) or www.streetmap.co.uk for links to aerial photographs.
>towns, lakes, companies and tourist attractions; clicking on the
>labels opened associated Web pages. What other 3D browsers are there
>-- VRML plugins have been around a while -- yet they do not seem to be
>successful. Why is that?"
>
Because they are not useful. In fact they rank up there with the Cuecat Barcode reader as one of the lamest ideas ever concieved.
The Cosmo Worlds suite from SGI - you can easily knock up virtual rooms/districts/worlds in minutes with the same ease as creating HTML pages with FrontPage or similar. And it definitely has a useful place - for example:
A 3d model of an engine for mech school - click on a part and info flashes up, followed by sequence for removing/fitting the part, maybe with a virtual tutor offering advice.
You wouldn't use it for document browsing, but that isn't what it was designed to do. It really is a piece of cake to edit manually though.
The thing that astonishes me is people complaining of long download times - you can create detailed areas in a staggeringly small size if you are sensible about your image and texture maps. For really high res stuff, yes you will need more bandwidth, but that is always the case.
Oh, and Quake requires fine motor control largely because it's an arcade game - that's the whole point! You'd obviously want something a bit different for a mass-market browser...
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. So we now have super faster computers and graphic cards that can render 1024x768 at 60fps with 32bit colours, so what? It maybe good for gaming and some very specialised research and visualisation applications, but it is no good for general web browsing.
/.? No thanks.
Why? What does browsing mean? Reading (and maybe typing) text, and maybe some images here and there. So what does a 3D environment bring you in this case? Nothing. Reading an article in 3D is pointless; most people will rather stick with the good old "flat text".
The reason Virtual Reality did not catch on for web browsing is that it is not bring anything new. At least not anything people think are useful outside of some very specialised cases. For example 3D maps cool! 3D
We are still waiting for a killer (non-game) app in 3D. In the mean time, the idea of 3D browser is probably only of interest to academics researchers.
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Flug durch die Schweiz
G-Vista Web präsentiert von GEONOVA AG
Browsercheck:
Für den Flug durch die Schweiz benötigen Sie den Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 oder höher.
Klicken Sie auf den untenstehenden Link um den Microsoft Internet Explorer von der Microsoft-Homepage herunterzuladen.
Download Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5
--
If Microsoft is the solution, I want my problems back
I don't see how you can say this. For the odd million years or so, we all have only had 3D data to interprit! It's only relativly recently that important data is represented in 2D. Now, I'm no biologist, but I think that means we are more capable of seeing data / information in 3D than in 2D.
As a point, think of the difficulty in imagining a finished building from an architects drawing, compared to a 3D representation.
I think the problem lies with our ( and I mean IT / computing professionals ) imagination / ability to represent data to non techies - or even to ourselves.
But in our everyday lives we don't have the time, don't want and don't care about 3D environments
I'm a member of the Flat Earth Society as well
"Now, I'm no biologist, but I think that means we are more capable of seeing data / information in 3D than in 2D."
I agree with that 100%. But the problem is that the so called "3D" images are displayed on a 2D display. We are used to interpret 3D and 2D data but what is 3D on 2D? It's not natural, which makes it slow and difficult.
Greets!
t ml
t er/bushf.htm
The reason that 3D isn't popular or practical - paper. Our current metaphor for information derives from Xerox Parc, a PAPER company. A faithful emulation of an office desk is NOT the best way to represent the complex infoverse we live in.
And the current web is not the best way to represent it either. Go back to hypertextual research before the web - look at Guide, look at Microcosm, before the brain damage of HTML and Mosaic set in.
Even better, go and look at Xanadu and ZigZag - representing information and the relationships between individual pieces of it is a complex task, perhaps made harder by our current metaphors. See ANYTHING by Ted Nelson, such as his technical briefing at the latest Hypertext conference.Read Vannevar Bush's "As we may think"
I would argue that we don't need 3D browsers, but MULTIDIMENSIONAL infoviewers, that can let us define the relationships and properties that we are interested at any moment, AND LET US CHANGE THEM easily and intuitively - I still remember the only good part of Johnny Mnemonic - zooming around cyberspace - also, to a lesser degree Lawnmower Man.
This is the way forward, and we need to learn from the games industry - Look at Homeworld, Q3D, even Elite - these are the kind of intuitive navigational and representational metaphors we ned to adopt to allow people to create, browse, populate and interact with their information.
Let us be imaginative, and move forwards to a representation of information as something we can use, rather than something we write down.
Links:
Microcosm:(Home) http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
(Review)http://www.man.ac.uk/MVC/SIMA/mcosm/toc.h
Guide: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0142.html
HyperText Conference: http://www.ht01.org/
GZigZag - http://gzigzag.sf.net
Xanadu: http://www.udanax.com
http://www.xanadu.com
As We May Think: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/compu
The electronic labyrinth - a good intro to hypertext, slanted toward literature http://www.iath.virginia.edu/elab/elab.html
The problem with the rat race is, even if you win, you're still a rat!
Have you all - gone - completely - insane?
VRML rules the Universe, and I will explain why.
There are comments that VRML is slower than specialised game engines. Well, duh. It's a general solution, they are specific solutions. There are many things that you can do in VRML that are not possible in game engines. For example, arbitrarily large worlds. Every object being active and scriptable. In the Quake engine, it's not possible to make a door rotate on its hinge. Quake only allows for sliding doors. In VRML, of course, any object can do anything. In Quake, the largest space you can make is the size of a dance hall. In VRML, you can make a space as big as the solar system, and zoom in to a grain of sand. If you've ever tried to use a game engine, you'll know; they're great within their constraints. But those constraints are severe.
VRML is the only general, extensible solution for VR. And it happens to be an open standard, controlled by a consortium with Open Source as a core part of its platform. It's come a long way since 1997. It's integrated into MPEG4 - go to The MPEG4 spec page and do a search for "VRML". It's been extended with NURBS, geospatial capabilities, and more. It's fully scriptable with Java, ECMAScript, and whatever else you want to plug into the open source.
There are comments here that what we need is and XML language for Web3D. OK, fine, you got it. VRML has an XML encoding; it's called X3D. The old encoding still works too.
It's out there now, being used in real applications to actually do stuff with VR beyond running around in a maze shooting blocky 256-colour monsters. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you want to know what's actually going on now, the best source for general Web3D info is Sandy Ressler's about.com site.
If you want cool tools for VRML, go to the new kings of Web3D - ParallelGraphics. They have authoring tools for Windows, and a browser for Mac and Windows. Unfortunately they are WinTel-centric, so no Linux, and no Mac authoring. Shout at them until they come around. Nicely, of course.
If you want a visual VRML authoring tool for Windows, go to Spazz3D, the most useful tool to ever have such a stupid name.
But this is Slashdot, so here's the dirt: for the Free Software/Open Source angle, go to OpenVRML. They have a browser for all major platforms, and if you don't like it, you can fix it yourself.
Hypermedia, virtual worlds, human interface, truth, beauty.
Why does no one use VRML? Because virtually no one can use VRML. Not for anything interesting or useful anyway. Ever looked at a VRML file with any significant detail to it? They are huge. Far too large to comfortably send around the web, even with a broadband connection. Even when network speed isn't a consideration, it still is too bloated to do anything useful with that can't be done much better with proprietary (and better designed) 3D model formats.
.JT (from EAI) Granted, it's proprietary and not without some other problems, but it is much "lighter" than VRML ever dreamed of being while still looking quite good. It's getting used for PDM (Product Data Management) systems in the business world which require a relatively light weight, CAD vendor neutral, tesselated 3D model. This market opportunity was created in part because VRML was too bloated to be useful. The opportunity is still there, but VRML in it's current form just isn't the answer.
In my job we use various 3D formats daily. Various CAD system (ProE, CATIA, AutoCAD, etc) native formats, IGES, STEP, STL, and yes VRML. We do work with virtual reality technologies, 3d modelling and simulation. The only use we have ever found for VRML is as a vendor neutral format for exporting tesselated images of CAD data between a few selected pieces of software. And even then we have to be careful how big the VRML we use is. 3D Studio Max (one of the more well known apps we use) will choke on a VRML bigger than 75-100 Meg. And this is on a Dual Proc 800Mhz P3 with 2Gig of RAM! You can generate a VRML that size with one automotive assembly with a decent amount of detail to it. (a single front axle module for instance) Forget building a world, you'll have trouble building more than a few simple objects with VRML.
If we cannot use VRML for anything useful beyond simple format translation, what chance is it ever going to have to be used for something more clever? VRML is useless because it is too big and it is too slow. Simple as that. If the format sucked less, the tools would come to take advantage of it. But right now, there is no point because VRML isn't useful for anything and even with computer speed increases isn't going to be for some time to come.
If you want to see a more useful 3D tesselated format look at
1) VRML2: unimplementable.
The spec contains 3 scripting langages. There are 3 different mechanisms for animation. Everyone implemented part of it, so all VRML2 browsers were mutually incompatible, more or less, which defeated the reason to have a spec in the first place.
Blame who you like.
2) 3D content takes, literally, 2500 times longer to make than 2D content.
A business wanting to put merchandise online has to do 1 week of work per model.
A good commercial photographer can take 500 merchandise photographs a day.
Is 3D 2500 times more compelling than 2D? (No.)
3) It exists in a tricky place, half file format and half scripting language.
If you're not using motion, why not use the existing Java viewers for OBJ's?
If you're using animation, and 3d-ness isn't mission-critical, why not Flash, which is more standardized and faster?
If the point is a walkthorough, why not a sequence of pictures?
If you're trying to make a game, why use a plugin at all?
Then, the reasons others noted:
4) It's slow.
5) It's harder to navigate.
6) Everything looks crappy.
7) Mom doesn't get it.
8) You weren't allowed to sell the plugin.
Well, ActiveWorlds is a 3D chat environment that allows user building, has hundreds of worlds, and allows any object to link to a web page that appears in the web pane of the Active Worlds browser. It's always free for "tourists" as well.
Artificial intelligence or natural stupidity?
Guess which wrote this...
So I will!
Development continues on the NEARLY XML based 3DML from flatland, with source being made available for many of their tools:
Flatland: http://www.flatland.org
Source: http://www.3dml.org
An interpreter in programming is a program that executes source code line by line. Whats 3D source code? A game engine "interprets" the level files, since they are not executable.
The Swiss stuff certainly gets a high whiz-bang-wow-cool rating, but outside of specialized applications, I don't think we need to focus on things such as 3-D web navigation just yet. I mean, we can't even do alot of the stuff that Vannevar Bush described yet.
Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases
There are binaries for windows, the source is python and C, and was developed on Linux.
The performance is 10x better than the VRML I've played with. Frame rates often exceed 30 fps, except for when dealing with very large datasets (rotating a large protein w/ waters is too large with current hardware for realtime manpliation). Check it out at PyMol
95% of the computer users out there use a flat, 2-D interface. People are used to that. The jump from CLI to GUI was huge...and now that people are used to a standard window-based GUI, it's going to take a lot of leverage to move forward anything that differs significantly.
blog |
And also remember that fundamentally, humans think in a 2D planar world. Do we live in a 3D world, yes, but for all intents and purposes we can abstract our world down to a 2D map, and if you think about it, that's really how our brain works. All the 3D elements in our world (trees, houses, mountains) really just get in our way as we're trying to move around in 2 dimensions.
As an example, human buildings are not 3D environments, they consist of several 2D planes stacked on top of each other.
Although pundits were quick to announce the death of VRML, it will have a longer lifespan than any of its competitors - including Java3D. VRML-97, with a few extensions, is the 3D compositing layer of MPEG-4, which is slowly making its way into the consumer marketplace. You can expect that, by the end of this decade, VRML will be the most widespread and widely used 3D technology in consumer electronics - a market of more importance and economic power than the Web.
1. VRML was designed by committee. 'nuff said
2. 3D files are large and need compression -- see http://www.3dcompression.com
3. Redoing a 2D web browser in 3D will never work. 3D is only necessary for new or different apps that can't be done in 2D. Which apps? I don't know yet, but I think some 15 year old hacker will invent them once the 3D compression tech needed is out there.
As an example, human buildings are not 3D environments, they consist of several 2D planes stacked on top of each other.
Boy I feel stupid. All this time I thought it was due to gravity.
t.
So you create a web browser which precompiles everything before it runs it. Sort of like how Turbo Pascal used to do it or how Perl gets its speed from.
have you ever visited cybertown.com? it's a perfect example of what vrml can do if done right. it's no quake, but along the lines of interactivity and entertainment, it's much better than yahoo or irc.
while you make pretty speeches...i'm being cut to shreds. you throw me to the lions...a delicate balance.
conspiracy because no one is smart enough to pull it off.
They where smart enough to "pull it off", why did they leave stuff to be found, why not dump it in garbage can.
OTOH - maybe they left it like other people manage to leave their tickets in the glove box....
The rushing to war without looking at all the possiblities is scaring me.
And for some things, having a 3D file system browser can be really handy. I use a 3D desktop software that will display any non-customized directory in a standard 2D window, but it also allows me to have all of my image directories displayed as a room or hall where the pictures are hanging on the wall. As an artist, this make it much easier to preview my images as I can just "walk" right by them and know what they are.
That might be true if we had monoscopic (ie. cyclops) vision. The way that your eyes work together do indeed produce a three dimensional image.
If you ever go to a shooting range or even play pool then you can easily test this. When you are aiming (with either the gun or cue), shoot with both eyes focused on the target object. Now try it with one eye closed. You will probably do much worse using only a single eye.
that sounds pretty interesting, what apps do you use for that?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
see subject. Nothing to say.