Slashdot Mirror
Google Brings 3D To Web With Open Source Plugin
maxheadroom writes "Google has released an open source browser plugin that provides a JavaScript API for displaying 3D graphics in web content. Google hopes that the project will promote experimentation and help advance a collaborative effort with the Khronos Group and Mozilla to create open standards for 3D on the web. Google's plugin offers its own retained-mode graphics API, called O3D, which takes a different approach from a similar browser plugin created by Mozilla. Google's plugin is cross-platform compatible and works with several browsers. In an interview with Ars Technica, Google product manager Henry Bridge and engineering director Matt Papakipos say that Google's API will eventually converge with Mozilla's as the technology matures. The search giant hopes to bring programs like SketchUp and Google Earth to the browser space."
Maybe Google will make a game engine that doesn't suck next.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The 3d web doesn't work. What "problem" are they trying to fix? That's the main reason it keeps failing.
-- incubus
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
It has been years since I was on a 32bit linux system... Guess I will not be trying this out anytime soon...
Man... I thought we covered this with the last story related to the proposed Khronos 3d api. This is nothing like VRML. It is a javascript api to use graphics hardware.
Nothing to do with markup of any kind (aside from the xml in Collada, which is not necessarily part of the standard). Ugh.
There are things I would like to see in 3D and I do think the capability to embed 3D objects is a useful step.
Off the top of my head:
-google earth in a browser.
-games are always a target for tech like this.
-any sort of 3d visualization of data that would benefit from non static viewing.
That said I disagree with how they made this, conceptually I prefer the 3D context for the canvas tag.
There are already proprietary applications for viewing 3D objects in browsers. These are useful for certain lines of work, such as displaying CAD models. I don't think the industrial companies that use these technologies will be the first to adopt open standards, but it might be a useful tool for smaller design houses.
As you wrote, online game designers will probably be all over this, and their ability to generate revenue should not be underestimated.
Speaking as an animator and web developer, I'd rather see this effort on the part of Google and Mozilla put into 3D SVG. It would eliminate the need for yet another plugin, allow direct DOM access, and facilitate the mixing of 3d with other page elements.
Or maybe I just want Lain's web experience...
Since the dawn of computer communications, there has always been a single valid answer to that question: porn.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Remeber - its a neat little tag that is really quite powerful in the right hands, everything supports it but internet explorer, google made a plugin for IE but still no website uses canvas because you can't ignore the fact that no IE user has it (until HTML 5 if IE stays standards complient).
I would *love* opengl ES like 3d rendering in javascript, with a fast enough javascript engine you could do some great things, at the last you could make fluid websites without the need for a flash plugin eating up cpu... but alas i feel this is doomed to the same fate as our old google canvas plugin for IE.
Ugh... I think I might suck cocks on this one. I had assumed that since Google is part of the Khronos initiative, they were closer to the approach of Mozilla's canvas:3d, where the philosophy was to expose a significant subset of opengl so opengl programmers could jump right in. After reading this, I've come around to thinking O3D actually is kind of like VRML, unfortunately.
Why would you want to kill Flash? Flash is great:
* Large install base with very fast uptake on new versions.
* Great IDE, large ecosystem of code, developers and tools.
* Easy streaming of HD video to the browser.
* Great communication server, video chat is an example level project.
* Small file size for the plugin, support for Window, OS X and Linux.
Other then being open, what would your hodgepodge collection of technologies and tools offer over Flash?
Google's main 3D project is SketchUp, an easy 3D modeling studio. But it's not available for Linux. And it runs crappy, if at all, in WINE. It's also nearly the only way (other than a really tricky multi-app process with Blender) to import 3D buildings into Google Earth. Which means that without a Linux SketchUp, it's nearly impossible to get Google Earth to place the buildings properly (it requires IPC which doesn't work with SketchUp running within WINE).
So if Google is going to spend programmer hours bringing 3D to the masses, how about finishing bringing SketchUp to Linux already?
--
make install -not war
Compare Youtube videos to a native video player, the native option is much better.
Mostly because YouTube is based on Flash, and there currently aren't any major video sites using the video tag. I'd suggest that the video tag would be much better.
That's what self extracting installers are for, and you should be able to install to your home directory. If not, that's a packaging issue that's easy to deal with.
Unless they've also locked it down with something like noexec.
there's nothing stopping an app from being self updating.
True, but autoupdate is one of many things a browser / web-based application gives you "for free".
Another one is navigation. No reason a native app can't have hyperlinks back/forward buttons, and history, but why reinvent the wheel?
Another is extensibility. Without really doing much, you're probably still allowing people to write Greasemonkey scripts for your app.
Another is the refresh button. Complete reboot + autoupdate all in one.
Another is extreme portability -- native players may be better than YouTube, but it's difficult finding a machine that won't play YouTube out of the box. VLC isn't a terribly big download, but it's still an inconvenience, especially on machines where such things aren't allowed.
Another is security. Trusting one plugin to add 3D support is considerably safer than trusting every single application you might want to download that might want to render 3D. The browser is necessarily a sandbox, which means you don't have to set up a more complex one (like a chroot or a virtual machine).
The list goes on. You may not like the platform, but there are advantages to having an open standard portable platform. In fact, the browser is fulfilling the promise of Java so many years ago -- compile once, run anywhere.
I would say, if you don't like doing everything in the browser, and there's a specific reason you don't like it, improve it. That's what happened here, I'm sure -- Google doesn't like doing Google Earth in the browser, because the browser has no 3D. So they've improved the browser.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Better integration with Google's advertisement services.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.