[X3D-Public] my musings on O3D and JavaScript on the web

[GLG]

In the game world we are building, which I've just
mentioned, geometry and logic are largely kept separate
using protos. So we have logic/program files and 3D object
files. These files share the .wrl extension but that's about
it, except for minor scripts where it makes sense to keep
them with the objects.  We find this to be an extremely
powerful method of applying behaviors to objects. However,
we do use javascript profusely and find that the way X3D
allows the integration of logic and geometry an asset, not a
detriment. Again, we largely divide logic and geometry, but
X3D's ability to have both interact at such a deep level is
something I feel gives it strenght. Something that may prove
difficult to reproduce in an O3D framework. It can be done,
but it will take time, a long time.

I seriously doubt O3D will surpass X3D in power anytime in
the foresesable future. Functionalities provided by an O3D
enabled Web browser can possibly be taken advantage of and
assimilated into X3D, but not so much the other way around
as Google would like us to believe. Why aren't they working
with us instead of attempting to take our lunch? That's
bullying, and that is the issue I have with O3D, the way it
is being marketed as "an open web standard for 3D graphics";
a false premise as evidenced in the following extract from
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/


"O3D is an open-source web API for creating rich,
interactive 3D applications in the browser. This API is
shared at an early stage as part of a conversation with the
broader developer community about establishing an open web
standard for 3D graphics." 


I'm sorry what? You are sharing your new API with us as part
of a conversation about establishing an open web standard
for 3D graphics? We already have a standard, it is ISO
approved and in use at countless organizations. Aren't you a
bit late to have a conversation about "establishing an open
web standard"?

As far as I am concerned, O3D and X3D COULD possibly be
friends, but not like that. Google needs to be able to fully
recognize X3D. I am asking the O3D team to reword this
position, which, intentionally or not, as it stands, is
blatantly misleading.

Lauren
3dnpvei.com


>-----Original Message-----
>From: x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org [mailto:x3d-public-
>bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of Lars O. Grobe
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:38 AM
>To: x3d-public
>Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] my musings on O3D and JavaScript
>on the web
>
>Len Bullard schrieb:
>> Converting a Phong sphere and converting the behaviors of
>any real-time 3D
>> content are not so simple.
>>
>> What does an O3D converter do with the internal
>Javascripts, interpolators,
>> sensors, and so on?
>
>I think this is part of the alternative that this new
>engine offers.
>
>A) Convert the 3d-part into low-level code that will work
>in any web
>browser, make it simple and have this work with all kind of
>3d-content-generators.
>
>B) Have a scripting interface, that again works fine in any
>web browser,
>to implement the logic.
>
>x3d tries to solve both at once. This may be a nice idea,
>but in many
>cases fails. Most work-flows produce geometry from tools
>that do not
>know anything about behaviour - so there is no need to
>stuff all of it
>into one format. And dividing logic and geometry not only
>matches the
>tools better in many cases - it avoids a lot of errors.
>
>So if anyone wants to compare the sphere with some logic in
>x3d and o3d
>- look only at the logic part, as the geometry can be
>imported and will
>not by created by typing in a text editor in most cases.
>
>Do not misunderstand me, I still think that x3d is a great
>tool. But for
>a mass market adoption, the support by web browsers is
>missing. And the
>developers of these browsers obviously fear integrating the
>whole system
>of geometry, sensors, scripts that comes with x3d, as they
>can have the
>same result with adding some 3d geometry features to
>existing
>programming apis. Can we blame them?
>
>CU Lars.