Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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.
Hello problem?? This is solution!! Problem?? Problem??
PROBLEM, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
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."
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!
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.