[X3D-Public] SPAM: O3D presentation at Metaverse U Streaming

[Len Bullard]

Maybe not.   It is a competition with the current capabilities of the
plugins for expressive content.  Consider that by smart culling of the
current X3D node space, Vivaty can express a scene at island size.
BitManagement can do that and support current content stock at both fidelity
and speed.

 

For engines, it's about richness of smaller locales over reach of larger
ones.   That's a false dichotomy in multi-engine systems united by common
content application languages.  That's why X3D is the right thing for Google
to get behind.   It solves a lot of distribution and learning curve problems
fast, neat, and with no increase in IP overhead.  Probably settles some
debates at the O3D shop too.  I find when managing a small team, settling
some of that by fiat is an accelerant.  When the bean counters look at
project, having a community of people out here willing to cheer for you
helps too.

 

len

 

-----Original Message-----
From: x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Francis
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:37 PM
To: X3D Graphics public mailing list
Subject: Re: [X3D-Public] SPAM: O3D presentation at Metaverse U Streaming

 

Thanks for the link Damon,

I think I just heard Vangelis suggest that X3D could be built on top of O3D
(or Canvas3D or similar). Is that a good idea? It seems neater than having
two completely separate APIs for 3D in the browser, but possibly an
inefficient way of implementing X3D?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20090529/b12e2179/attachment.html>