"VRML was supposed to be replaced by X3D, which is simply VRML 97 with XML delimiters instead of VRML delimiters."
Incorrect - please check your facts. There are several new features in X3D. It's a full upgrade with environment mapping, multi-texturing, programmable shaders, 2D and 3D layers, more/better scripting. Next up, multi-user networking, physics, particle systems and more.
My company is currently building a multi-user virtual worlds system using only X3D. We have not launched this yet, but the precursor to it is up and running on our company site, http://www.mediamachines.com/, in the form of an upload-and-share service for authoring and publishing 3D.
Check out www.ajax3d.org - Integrating X3D (updated VRML) with Ajax.
Re:How will this affect X3D?
on
Collada
·
· Score: 1
Peter,
I see the potential for great synergy between X3D and Collada. Collada is squarely in the domain of interchange, while X3D is much better for downstream deployment. I would not use the Collada data structures at runtime, whereas I do use X3D for that.
I wouldn't say that X3D has "failed" with entertainment as such, primarily because there was never really any attempt to push it into that market. It would be more accurate to say that there was enough lack of interest a few years back that the Web3D Consortium (the organization that develops the X3D specification) figured it wasn't worth the effort to push in that direction.
Over the last few years we have seen attempts to build games and other entertainment applications with X3D. The results have been mixed thus far, but promising. My own company is building an online virtual world system with X3D and we find that the blend of features is just right for a web-based solution. Would I use our Flux engine to build a AAA console title today? No. But it wasn't designed for that. I think that X3D is ideal for deploying lightweight game and entertainment content over the web, especially if there is a need for it to be moddable or support mash-ups with other Web data like Google Maps, etc.
Game developers aren't using X3D-- that's not a surprise. Especially since it's not intended as a gaming format, but for productivity and communications applications that use real time 3D. So, the last statement is almost dead-on: they are targeted at different domains (vs. demographics as stated).
That's not to say that X3D could't be extended into the games space; it's a scene graph with a broad set of features, including most of the stuff that showed up in the Collada presentation I saw at SIGGRAPH:-o. But extending it to do games well would require time and effort. Nobody that is working in X3D can make a business case for that; our customers want Visualization, not games.
The conversation could end right here. However, I think both camps stand to gain by bringing this issue out in the open, to avoid future confrontations and, more importantly, customer confusion (because it's all about our customers, right?:->)
Why the Collada team decided to invent something brand new and call it a standard instead of working within an existing standard framework such as the Web3D Consortium is, I suspect, as much about industry politics as anything else.
I will continue to suspect that until such time as somebody provides solid technical or business reasons as to why X3D doesn't cut it for game interchange. You know, things like "it needs cells and portals." In other words, specifics. Until then, I consider responses such as "we asked game developers and modeler companies about X3D, and we could not find one project using X3D as file format" *political* positions, not technical arguments, voiced by industry players who want to control a format, not by product vendors trying to serve their customers.
Now, I don't want to just sling barbs. I would like to offer something constructive too. I predict that the Collada team will continue to get asked this and similar questions, and that you would be well served by constructing a sensible technical or business answer to the question. As much as Collada has the potential of randomizing *my* life by confusing people about which format to use for visualization-- X3D or Collada-- the same thing could happen to you guys about gaming and you might want to take preventative measures.
By the way, there are at least a few X3D exporters coming online for modeling packages, including Maya and Modo. I assume the others wn't be far behind. So when you say "modeling companies" don't support X3D please be more careful.
Wow. Tough crowd.
Anyway, my whole point was, just as you said, that WildTangent makes games, because games make money.
Boy. People really read a lot into these things.
Hey Mihtrandir,
>Where Tony and I disagree is that X3D nor VRML has any use being a "Web" standard. Where VRML has been hugely successful is out in industry in places that don't care about the web.
Actually, I agree completely. Sorry if I gave any other impression. If you go re-read things you'll see that I took great care to characterize X3D, and what our movement is trying to do now, as about "real time" and "communication" not about Web. Web is like 10 to 20 percent of what this is about IMO.
Tony
I've seen this kind of thing come and go over the years-- big threats to VRML from the big companies. And it *always* falls by the wayside.
An interesting twist this time around is that the U3D group is playing the standards game, by going to ECMA. The Web3D Consortium-- the trade group that Mark and I helped found-- has a long a quite successful track record in this domain. We also have good working relationships with W3D and MPEG.
So, can the U3D posse beat us at our own game? Good question. They have a big microphone and they are throwing a lot of big names around. But you could have said that those other times, too.
Two things let me get a good night's sleep last night:
Intel claims that there is "no standard" out there that does what U3D does. Not true. There *is* an ISO standard called X3D that does everything the U3D group is claiming. And it's out there now.
Someone asked whatever happened to VRML? Over the last 4 years it got an upgrade, was renamed X3D, is coded in XML, is totally scalable and *doesn't* bog down in CPU like ahem some companies would like. It accelerates very well and already supports hardware programmable shaders through new extensions.
For more information, go to http://www.web3d.org/
Tony Parisi
X3D Working Group Co-Chair
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect - please check your facts. There are several new features in X3D. It's a full upgrade with environment mapping, multi-texturing, programmable shaders, 2D and 3D layers, more/better scripting. Next up, multi-user networking, physics, particle systems and more.
My company is currently building a multi-user virtual worlds system using only X3D. We have not launched this yet, but the precursor to it is up and running on our company site, http://www.mediamachines.com/, in the form of an upload-and-share service for authoring and publishing 3D.
Check out www.ajax3d.org - Integrating X3D (updated VRML) with Ajax.
Peter, I see the potential for great synergy between X3D and Collada. Collada is squarely in the domain of interchange, while X3D is much better for downstream deployment. I would not use the Collada data structures at runtime, whereas I do use X3D for that. I wouldn't say that X3D has "failed" with entertainment as such, primarily because there was never really any attempt to push it into that market. It would be more accurate to say that there was enough lack of interest a few years back that the Web3D Consortium (the organization that develops the X3D specification) figured it wasn't worth the effort to push in that direction. Over the last few years we have seen attempts to build games and other entertainment applications with X3D. The results have been mixed thus far, but promising. My own company is building an online virtual world system with X3D and we find that the blend of features is just right for a web-based solution. Would I use our Flux engine to build a AAA console title today? No. But it wasn't designed for that. I think that X3D is ideal for deploying lightweight game and entertainment content over the web, especially if there is a need for it to be moddable or support mash-ups with other Web data like Google Maps, etc.
Game developers aren't using X3D-- that's not a surprise. Especially since it's not intended as a gaming format, but for productivity and communications applications that use real time 3D. So, the last statement is almost dead-on: they are targeted at different domains (vs. demographics as stated).
That's not to say that X3D could't be extended into the games space; it's a scene graph with a broad set of features, including most of the stuff that showed up in the Collada presentation I saw at SIGGRAPH :-o. But extending it to do games well would require time and effort. Nobody that is working in X3D can make a business case for that; our customers want Visualization, not games.
The conversation could end right here. However, I think both camps stand to gain by bringing this issue out in the open, to avoid future confrontations and, more importantly, customer confusion (because it's all about our customers, right? :->)
Why the Collada team decided to invent something brand new and call it a standard instead of working within an existing standard framework such as the Web3D Consortium is, I suspect, as much about industry politics as anything else.
I will continue to suspect that until such time as somebody provides solid technical or business reasons as to why X3D doesn't cut it for game interchange. You know, things like "it needs cells and portals." In other words, specifics. Until then, I consider responses such as "we asked game developers and modeler companies about X3D, and we could not find one project using X3D as file format" *political* positions, not technical arguments, voiced by industry players who want to control a format, not by product vendors trying to serve their customers.
Now, I don't want to just sling barbs. I would like to offer something constructive too. I predict that the Collada team will continue to get asked this and similar questions, and that you would be well served by constructing a sensible technical or business answer to the question. As much as Collada has the potential of randomizing *my* life by confusing people about which format to use for visualization-- X3D or Collada-- the same thing could happen to you guys about gaming and you might want to take preventative measures.
By the way, there are at least a few X3D exporters coming online for modeling packages, including Maya and Modo. I assume the others wn't be far behind. So when you say "modeling companies" don't support X3D please be more careful.
Tony Parisi
Wow. Tough crowd. Anyway, my whole point was, just as you said, that WildTangent makes games, because games make money. Boy. People really read a lot into these things.
Hey Mihtrandir, >Where Tony and I disagree is that X3D nor VRML has any use being a "Web" standard. Where VRML has been hugely successful is out in industry in places that don't care about the web. Actually, I agree completely. Sorry if I gave any other impression. If you go re-read things you'll see that I took great care to characterize X3D, and what our movement is trying to do now, as about "real time" and "communication" not about Web. Web is like 10 to 20 percent of what this is about IMO. Tony
Sun has also been a big backer of VRML and X3D over the years. Sun is still a very active member of the Web3D Consortium.
I've seen this kind of thing come and go over the years-- big threats to VRML from the big companies. And it *always* falls by the wayside.
An interesting twist this time around is that the U3D group is playing the standards game, by going to ECMA. The Web3D Consortium-- the trade group that Mark and I helped found-- has a long a quite successful track record in this domain. We also have good working relationships with W3D and MPEG.
So, can the U3D posse beat us at our own game? Good question. They have a big microphone and they are throwing a lot of big names around. But you could have said that those other times, too.
Two things let me get a good night's sleep last night:
Tony
Intel claims that there is "no standard" out there that does what U3D does. Not true. There *is* an ISO standard called X3D that does everything the U3D group is claiming. And it's out there now. Someone asked whatever happened to VRML? Over the last 4 years it got an upgrade, was renamed X3D, is coded in XML, is totally scalable and *doesn't* bog down in CPU like ahem some companies would like. It accelerates very well and already supports hardware programmable shaders through new extensions. For more information, go to http://www.web3d.org/ Tony Parisi X3D Working Group Co-Chair