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."
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 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.
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?
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
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.
... 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.
"Derp de derp."
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?
:P
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.