One 3D Format to Rule Them All

prostoalex writes "Three-dimensional graphics for the Web always seemed like a great concept that's not there yet. Five years ago many publications saw a great future in 3D-Web, but somehow things just haven't been moving in that direction. Apparently, the status quo is not making companies in this field happy and so the big guys, including Intel, Macromedia, AutoDesk, EDS et al. formed a 3D CAD working group. They claim that 'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the Web, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.' The article is published in the latest issue of Intel Developer Update magazine, which is also available as a PDF."

Comments

Great.

[geekd]

Great. As if Flash isn't bad enough, now everybody's going to have a huge 3D intro to thier web site.

Note to web designers:

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

I can see how this would be sweet for colaborative development in the CAD field, but you know people are going to screw up thier web pages with it.

I like text only web pages. Is that so wrong?

Re:Great.

[silentbozo]

No. What's wrong are the legions of newly minted "web designers" putting their sites together using fancy GUI page editors, which pack their page code with extra nubs here and there which just bloat the code and provide minimal real functionality. Even worse, it becomes so easy to integrate stuff like flash, that flash becomes the default, even for PAGES THAT DON'T NEED IT! Ever run into a site that runs fine without Javascript, but won't let you in if you turn it off?

Oh, and I blame Macromedia, not Flash, for encouraging this trend - they'd like nothing better than for every platform to have Flash enabled by default, and to sell more Flash tools. Ditto for the 3D guys - they want to sell hardware, remember that!

In the meantime, I code my stuff by hand on my 7 year old computer, running a 6 year old operating system (Mac OS 7.6.1). Don't forget, you want to design for a wide audience, you have to include the disabled, some of whom are blind (some just color-blind). The option to override page defaults exists for a reason - if you have vision problems and need to use a high-contrast body text/background combo, you should be able to do it. Ditto if you need to use a text reader to navigate.

Arrgh, mod me down, I'm done ranting. :P

Re:Great.

[sahala]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

...

I like text only web pages. Is that so wrong?

Just because you don't see a useful application, doesn't mean that no one else will.

I'm not saying that 3D is the next big thing. Far from it. In fact to a large extent I agree with your latter comment (text only web pages). I would even argue that the technical community can barely come up with decent 3D applications outside of a web browser, let alone in a web browser. Even a lot of games out don't really need 3D for decent playability...it's more for effect and keeping up with the times.

But I do think that having some standard for it would be beneficial, if only to give people more tools to do more interesting things. I can think of a few applications I have worked on that might have benefited from a 3D standard for data visualization. Uses were very limited to a few instances, but it would have helped. I don't worry too much about people overdoing it on web pages because as others have noted, a web page chock-full of unecessary crap will eventually have less visits. Web developers will learn their lesson one way or another, whether the hard or easy way.

3D web.

[garcia]

maybe it is b/c the web is 2D but I really don't see a need for 3D web. I use the web to read news, do research, find jobs, and look at porn. Yeah, I suppose 3D porn would be nice but not really necessary.

Research materials in 3D, hmm, it still would not be the same as holding reference material from 1863 in an archive.

News in 3D? Not really necessary, shit on TV is too real as it is.

The only thing I really care to actually deal w/in 3D MYSELF is video games (Gran Turismo and Madden).

What do I know though right?

maybe there's a reason

[ceejayoz]

Maybe the reason there's very little 3D content on the web is because there's no need?

Just because I can spawn 50,000 popups and have 10 Flash animations playing music at the same time doesn't mean I need it. Some of the best websites - Google's a perfect example - are good because they're simple and elegant.

Need is obvious?

[yamla]

'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the Web, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.'

What? That strikes me as very very strange. The volume of Jeri Ryan content on the web is similarly minuscule, well under 1 percent. Nobody is saying we need a common format for Jeri Ryan content.

Isn't it just possible that most people don't have 3D content they want to share via the web?

Re:Need is obvious?

[frank_adrian314159]

Nobody is saying we need a common format for Jeri Ryan content.

Well, it is now obvious that there should be one! We could call it the Jeri Unified Graphics Standard or, as an acronym, ... well, you get the idea.

Whats with the "To Rule Them All" stuff...

[coene]

OK, so LOTR was a decent movie, but I'm getting really sick of this slogan being put places it really shouldent be. Just my (albiet, off topic) 2 cents.

Feedback from open source 3d projects?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if any of the big companies mentioned ever thought to include input from some of the 3d projects going on around the net. They might be suprised by the info they get.

Before they do that...

[NanoGator]

... they need to make a 3D format that works across all 3D rendering packages. As it is, you can't go from Lightwave to 3D Studio MAX (or vice-versa) without having to make huge tweaks or changes to make it work. The most infuriating thing is that fundamentally, they aren't that different from each other. If somebody would come up with an 'esperanto' file format that anybody can support, then it's worth buying multiple 3d packages as opposed to sticking with just one.

When that happens, then 3D artists will be able to use the 3D Package they are comfy with to generate 3d art for the web. Until then, nobody's going to convince me to use some other toolset I'm not familiar with just to support a gimmick.

As stated before, 3D on the web is not a big screaming deal.

OpenGL, of course

[death00]

SGI designed OpenGL with a client/server architecture from the ground up. With current high-speed internet connections, this is becoming more feasible. You're not going to get frame rates in the hundreds per second, but with texture caching and data compression, OpenGL could be a good solution to this.

This page is a good reference on this.

Re:I'll tell you why 3D web content is so scarce

[nmtratman]

Yep -- anyone can throw together a web page, even my grandparents. But how is my grandmother supposed to be make 3D web page? Why would she want to?

Why a 3D web? A 2D layout works for most everything. Print media uses it, with the odd smeary hologram being the exception. It's much easier to manipulate and organize.

There's several problems with a 3D web:

1. It's hard to make. There won't be many 3D pages. Why do I want this if I have to spend a lot of time for a little bit of result? That doesn't look good if I'm not an artist? I can do layout, but not modelling, texturing, etc.
2. You'd have to rely on a wide range of capabities. Slow to fast, custom gaming rigs to business machines with crappy 3D capabilities. It would be difficult to produce nice-looking 3D with the capability to degrade gracefully.
3. You'd have to create compelling content that is prohibitive under 2D. How many weblogs need 3D support to tell their stories? How many news sites need 3D to show what has happened? What does 3D get you that a well-designed 2D site doesn't? There are purposes for 3D, but the vast majority of web sites would not benefit.
4. Seperation of content from presentation. In 3D, content is in presentation. This violates a prime concept for the web. How do people with disabilities get information from your 3D page?

And that's not even looking into the issue with interfaces with a 3D page.

Or the complaints you'd get from all the 486/Pentium linux users complaining that it takes too long to render/use (even after lynx has 3d support... ;)