Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

One 3D Format to Rule Them All

Posted by timothy on from the remember-that-intel-sells-chips dept.

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."

20 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Great. by geekd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Great. by GoatEnigma · · Score: 5, Funny

      <BLINK 3D>
      HI! This is my GEOCITIES WEB SIGHT!
      ..
      ..
      </BLINK 3D>

      you know it's going to happen...

    2. Re:Great. by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  2. 3D web. by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. maybe there's a reason by ceejayoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:maybe there's a reason by XavierPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's plenty of need:

      -discrete manufacturing partners could share parts, assemblies and full products via the internet. Ideally you'd search for a bolt via a google like search engine and it'd pull up a 3d representation of the bolts available. You could rotate it etc to see if it'll fit into your product.

      -web sales would benefit immensely. You can already pull up 3d representation of the car you'd like to buy (via flash?) on some auto manufacturers sites. I've got to imagine that took quite a bit of work that wasn't directly derived from the engineer's models. With a standard format, I've got to imagine it'd be somewhat simple (or at least reusable) to have a web interface to add options which change the model. Web sales will not overtake brick and mortar until the user can at least spin a product in 3d to get a feel for it, not to mention build to order.

      -repair and support could be placed on the web. The article states how the armed forces could have repair manuals available via web with all the parts, etc. Same for auto repair. At least they're getting away from printed repair docs, but I believe most still come in proprietary format via CD monthly or quarterly for big bucks. Doubt the ma & pa repair shops can afford it.

  4. Need is obvious? by yamla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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?

    --

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
    1. Re:Need is obvious? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      That is all.
  5. Hello? by swngnmonk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello problem?? This is solution!! Problem?? Problem??

    PROBLEM, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!

    --

    'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'

  6. Still no obvious *need* by ranulf · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.'

    Note that this just says that there is hardly any 3D content. Just making yet another file format available is not going to create more content. Sure, it'll ease migration of file between applications, but little else.

    And anyway, wasn't VRML supposed to be the de-facto standard for 3D on the web?

  7. VRML by czaby · · Score: 3, Informative

    So what happened to VRML?

  8. Whats with the "To Rule Them All" stuff... by coene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Before they do that... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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."
    1. Re: Before they do that... by Papineau · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most infuriating thing is that fundamentally, they aren't that different from each other.

      That's right. Their biggest difference is who's the publisher of the application. And it's also the reason why they're not very compatible with each other. Same thing in word processing: WordPerfect didn't have a filter to export to the latest Word format, now it's the other way around.

      My field is Mechanical Engineering, and it has the same problem with CAD software. Each major player (Dassault, PTC, Autodesk, etc.) doesn't want you to be able to change your design application easily by having filters to export to other apps. And there are some "esperanto" formats, namely STEP and IGES.

      The problems with these standard formats seems twofold. First, nobody ever tried to actually implement them completely. So an IGES file produced with CATIA might (or might not) be importable from Pro/E. So if it doesn't open, you're screwed, unless you can find some other format (or chain of formats) to go from program A to program B. Second, these standards are, in fact, not so standard themselves. There are a couple of ways to do most things in each of them, so a complete implementation would be monstruous. And I think there are some areas just left to the implementor.

      Another thing to note is that even if you can get to the 3D geometry, it doesn't mean it will be modifiable. Of course you'll be able to add a hole or stuff like that, but if you say "Oh, this feature is not exactly what I want anymore, I need to modify this radius", you won't have access to the original feature because those two formats replace those higher level features by low level features (think at the level of lines and splines). Frankly, I'm not sure if they have indeed been intended for continuing design between applications, rather than just having access to the 3D geometry for further processing (think 5-axis milling).

      But the thing is, it can be a desired feature of the format! That way, you can give away the final model, and not worry about possible modifications to it. Of course, it's not intended to allow you to change design application, just as 3DSMAX and Lightwave don't allow you to change easily...

    2. Re: Before they do that... by pmz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Second, these standards are, in fact, not so standard themselves.

      Even though IGES is a standard, your complaint about it is common, where the standard is too ambiguous and is never implemented fully or even correctly.

      STEP is also a standard (ISO-10303) which strives to deal with ambiguity, but it is monstrous, as you said. STEP is a collection of many standards (well over 100), with a subset of those being application-specific schemas suitable for CAD data interchange. The most popular of these is AP203, which is actaully what Pro/E's "STEP" export mostly is (I believe Pro/E does AP214, also). No vendor-provided CAD translator supports all of AP203, but the CAD companies have reached a rough consensus on the subset of functionality supported. This means it can be used to transfer model geometery between CAD systems. Unfortunately, AP203 does not support finer-grained details like parameterized solid features, so there most likely will be information lost in transferring a complex model. Other formats, such as AP224, can capture solid features, but AP224 support is not nearly as wide-spread as AP203 and is mainly used in niche processes.

      Another thing to note is that even if you can get to the 3D geometry, it doesn't mean it will be modifiable.

      STEP is designed for data interchange and really isn't designed to be a "live" format like the native Pro/E .prt and .asm files. To this end, the STEP formats focus on mathematical correctness over raw efficiency, which is partly the cause for the their large file sizes.

      I'm not sure if they have indeed been intended for continuing design between applications, rather than just having access to the 3D geometry for further processing (think 5-axis milling).

      Passing data down a work flow is very much one of the goals of STEP. The real design work is done in a system like Pro/E, then the STEP file can be sent to others for proofing and, finally, manufacturing. In general, the STEP file is a result of the design work, instead of being a part of an on-going design process.

      You've probably guessed by now that I have worked with STEP. One thing I have learned is that a ubiquitous 3-D format for the WWW will be a terribly difficult undertaking. STEP has done a reasonable job of capturing the concepts of 3D modelling, but only after 30 or so documents to define the fundamental constructs, another two or three for the file format, and another few dozen documents to capture the requirements for specific problem domains. This is literally thousands of pages of specification.

      I wish the Web3D people the best of luck.

      --
      Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  10. oh hell no by crea5e · · Score: 3, Funny


    I don't want any 3d pop up/under ads.

  11. 3d is an old joke... by GGardner · · Score: 3, Funny

    3d technology is bound to revolutionize the web the same way it revolutionized the movies...

  12. I'll tell you why 3D web content is so scarce by Featureless · · Score: 5, Informative

    And I should know, because I do a lot of work producing it. It is by no means a lonely field, but there are relatively few people who do it.

    Why put anything on the web? It's relatively cheap compared to printing flyers or magazines or novels, and there is really no parallel for instantly delivering interactive media (I've done dozens of web-based games, 3D and 2D using all of the technologies you've heard of and I'm sure several you haven't). But really, why?

    You see, 3D is complicated. I've regularly had to participate in hiring of modelers and artists capable of collaborating producing good, efficient 3D art on a deadline, and real skill in this field is still rare. I know the tools, and I've watched them work, and I see why. It takes a unique blend of manual dexterity, artistic ability, spatial skills, math, and geekdom - especially the last, because you have to be a geek to keep up with the tools and the issues, which are heinous. That law about the more special-purpose and expensive a piece of software is, the worse it is, applies to 3D tools in spades. There are so many bizarre little problems.

    Last but not least, most of the widely used 3D authoring systems are, or have historically been, very very expensive - $5,000 - $10,000 - $25,000 is not an unusual amount to spend just on software. There are cheaper tools, but remember, you have to interoperate with web middleware, and pretty much everything just imports from 3D Studio Max. And then, what's your presentation platform? VRML (ech)? Shockwave 8.5 (~$1,000)? There are others... my point is that most of these cost money too. Pre-rendering to Flash is the cheapest and actually very attractive, but then you don't get anything in real time and it's really just a clever trick for making a canned animation.

    The net result is that there are very few hobbyists producing 3D for the web - games or anything else. And then we have companies. So why would companies want to produce 3D content when they get almost as much oomph with good 2D technology (or just plain graphics) without the significant costs, and endless technology headaches? That's because even with the best middleware, you might see 10-25% of your users have some kind of 3D hardware/software related problem... old video drivers bunging up D3D which bunges up whatever your middleware is, weird budget 3D cards, software mode, etc... Most businesses just want to spend the least amount of money to reach the largest possible audience. And that was true before the drive to produce any kind of non-ecommerce-related commercial web content at all pretty much dried up.

    There are still a few people left who we haven't eliminated who, for whatever reason, it makes sense to produce 3D for the web. Product demos, promotional games, and the rest. Believe me, competing for their business is far from easy. ;)

    Don't get me wrong; I welcome better tools and better standards. There might be a niche for simple object inspection or static environment presentation ala a not-totally-braindead-VRML. But it's really not a big deal at all. Most of the real issues to do with web 3D are on the OS side of the equation - uniformity of hardware, APIs, cross-platform issues, etc. IOW just "Stability" and "Reliability." It's really, really hard to deliver 3D content to a wide PC audience even without the massive additional headaches of the web. At the end of the day, I think web 3D will come into its own when we collectively find it easy to author 3D the way we author text-and-graphics websites now - in other words, maybe never. Until then, it will remain a specialized niche which is (these days) reasonably well served by the existing toolmakers and not really susceptible to wide-ranging standards due to the divergent needs of the participants.

    --

    Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
    1. Re:I'll tell you why 3D web content is so scarce by nmtratman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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... ;)

      --
      Car analogies work about as well as a Ford Pinto with a keg of beer in the passenger seat.
  13. Uh oh, Web3D Consortium by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are really two completely different projects here. One is X3D, which is basically VRML 97 in XML syntax. The other is Hoops 3D, which is an binary interchange format for CAD documents. These are completely different. The two organizations are having some meetings with each other.

    X3D is definitely a solution looking for a problem. The Web3D crowd basically killed VRML by announcing their "new, improved, XML-based solution", used by nobody, supported by nobody, and with very little active work. If you get their SDK disks, it's mostly old VRML stuff and old Java3D stuff. This was sad, because it happened just about when hardware got good enough to do VRML properly. VRML over broadband with a current-generation OpenGL board works quite well.

    I haven't looked much at HOOPS, but it's a reasonable idea. IGES, the old FORTRAN-based interchange format (80 column lines, no less) is a bit dated.