cbullard at hiwaay.net
Fri Apr 24 05:38:23 PDT 2009
Not so fast.
Converting a Phong sphere and converting the behaviors of any real-time 3D
content are not so simple.
sensors, and so on?
This was pointed out several years ago by Tony Parisi. Exchange of 3D
content at the VRML 1.0 level is trivial. Appearance fidelity is slightly
more difficult for reasons Cindy made clear a decade ago. The other end of
the problem is behavioral fidelity. Exchange of real-time animation even
among X3D browser vendors is still bit dicey and that where the X3D standard
already has an object specification.
Generating spheres and boxes is trivial. Embedding in a web page is
trivial. Getting two assets to communicate and share behavior laden X3D is
not trivial so far.
So what do we get for having O3D? A lot of code happy/heavy people can show
phong spheres inside the HTML.
I see the API. So we will have yet another engine. We have LOTS of those
and some such as Unity3D are already light years ahead of O3D. Exactly WHY
would we want O3D as a standards candidate again? Because of Google, a
company that works alone in secret without even acknowledging what is out
there, a company that befuddles the worlds market with Lively, fails then
withdraws support without even having an off ramp for the content
developers? Isn't that exactly how the messes with Microsoft, Intel and
This is a wolf in sheep's clothing if history is informative. If Google
wants to work on the standard, if they have innovative technology to share,
then why don't they come through the front door instead of standing outside
practicing the huff and puff?
More information about the X3D-Public