[x3d-public] [x3dom-developers] [X3D-Public] Prototype

Daniel Vera d.a.vera at warwick.ac.uk
Tue Feb 17 07:08:41 PST 2015 

very worthy 2 cents in my opinion, which give a good idea of potential 
X3Dom end-user requirements: re-usability, maintainability, scalability, 
flexibility, ... availability and cost (I interpret Cost =  less coding 
overload).

My numbers are less impressive (~100 nested protos), but I cannot 
imagine achieving 1/10th of what we have done without PROTO or 
PROTO-like capabilities.
> Now an offer of wrapped up 'smart objects' (protos/webcomponents, 
> whatsoever) has a meaning too, both for ease of use or for marke 
Agree too.

Regards, Daniel
> Eric Maranne <mailto:eric at geovrml.com>
> 17 February 2015 14:32
> Hi,
>
> my two cents.
>
> CRISE is actually shifting it's EVE training simulation product 
> concept towards e-learning, hence ... looking for hassle free, 
> pluginless implementation, easy to stuff in HTML5 authoring tools.
>
> > DON states:
> > Just performed a search on the X3D Example Archives and found 
> <ProtoDeclare name="something"/> 1305 times in 319 files.  So they are 
> used.
>
> My numbers: 3806 objects in EVE objects Library, referencing 1689 
> EXTERNPROTOS, and implementing 2478 PROTOS ...
> Amongst them 98 different doors: sliding,..., opening,  ... wood, 
> glass, metal, ..., old style, modern style, navy ship style, plane 
> hangar style, ammunition storage style, grocery store style, ..., 
> intact, broken, bombed, messed with, burned on bottom or burned on 
> top, ... with or without lock (a whole bunch of lock types, classic, 
> bio, ...) ... each of them having parameters of course (size, opening 
> left/right/up .. even down :!, sounds, etc.) totalising to an unknown 
> number of configurations.
>
> TONY says:
>
> ><SlidingDoor axis='x' opendistance='.9' opensound='open.wav' 
> closesound='close.wav' activation='bump' />
> >Where 'SlidingDoor' is a 'smart object' consisting of some geometry, 
> sensor(s), audio node(s), and perhaps even some scripts.
>
> IMO VR needs are asking for more degrees of freedom ... well ... at 
> least my needs.
> Note that, in the old days, an exposed texture node would have been 
> enough to differentiate many of them, nowadays, it asks for lil more 
> complex shaders, if one wants an inconspicuous rendering ...
>
> Now, I understand my uses aren't mainstream, but it takes a lot of 
> different people to make a world of users, and I'm sure DON's 'door' 
> needs aren't JOE's nor TONY's ... so, one in all ... sure it's 
> possible to design a door Protos covering all the doors ?
> Even if PROTOS aren't easy to build and interoperate between browsers 
> (been using VR since Worldview BTW Tony, thanks, for it was just 
> great), when focusing on a single coherent implementation (read plugin 
> ... unfortunately), it is on a modeler/integrator range of skills... 
> not the same cost/availability as a seasoned programmer able to deal 
> with polyfills.
>
>
> Considering the shift in knowledge involved, right now, my choice for 
> porting EVE framework to pluginless implementation is going towards 
> EMSCRIPTEN because it enables a Proto/object approach from C++ (or 
> UNREAL/UNITY from my modelers point of view) ... now, clearly, if 
> X3Dom supported Protos, I would have favoured X3Dom. Clearly...  
> re-usability, maintainability, scalability, flexibility, ... 
> availability and cost.
>
> Now an offer of wrapped up 'smart objects' (protos/webcomponents, 
> whatsoever) has a meaning too, both for ease of use or for market.
>
> Thanks and have a nice day.
> Eric.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 17/02/2015 02:34, Joe D Williams a écrit :
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> Joe D Williams <mailto:joedwil at earthlink.net>
> 17 February 2015 01:34
>> is a real component sufficient  ...
>
> From my view the most important item of X3D Proto is that a proper 
> instance is totally alive in the event system, like a native node, 
> part of event cascade in the event graph.
>
>> what kind of content people really need this parameterised deep copy
>> of application data.
>
> Overall, one of the best uses of proto is shown in introdution of HAnim.
> This allowed most any VRML/X3D browser to produce a realistic 
> resizeable model with deep parameterization and predictable animations 
> from really pretty simple user code.
> This also highlighted the limits of even highly scripted protos for 
> realtime HAnim deformable skin and vertex displacers and even 
> stiffness without deep platform support.
>
> So, that is the main idea, like Tony said, make it easy to instantiate 
> custom nodes, so we can interactivly experiment with proven existing 
> features.
>
> Thanks and Best,
> Joe
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Behr, Johannes" 
> <johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de>
> To: "Alan Hudson" <alan at shapeways.com>
> Cc: "Andreas Plesch" <andreasplesch at gmail.com>; "x3d-pulbic mlist"
> <x3d-public at web3d.org>; "x3dom-developer mlist"
> <x3dom-developers at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3dom-developers] [X3D-Public] Prototype
>
>
>> I totally agree. I also worked on at least three implementations and
>> it's almost impossible to get the behaviour in a consistent way. The
>> concept is powerful but underspecified and a beast by combining
>> sub-classing and aggregation in a single construct.
>>
>> The questions is, for what kind of content people really need this
>> parameterised deep copy of application data. Or is a real component
>> sufficient.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Johannes
>>
>>> Not too be a hater but I don't think its a good idea to include
>>> PROTO's into X3DOM.  The VRML/X3D proto spec + scripting
>>> interactions is very hard to get cross platform.  I spent many
>>> years dealing with it and its just too much work.  Personally I'd
>>> rather see that development time spent elsewhere improving X3DOM.
>>> It's very helpful to be able to define your own vocabulary but as
>>> it stands PROTO's are not a proven cross platform way to do it.
>>> Maybe the other web native routes will have better luck.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Andreas Plesch
>>> <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Indeed, not having a PROTO node is a substantial lack of
>>> functionality in the x3dom code base and a loss if compared with
>>> standalone x3d browsers. At the risk of misinterpretation, to me it
>>> looks like there was conscious decision by the x3dom developers at
>>> some early point that the certainly very substantial cost of
>>> developing such functionality outweigh the expected benefits. This
>>> may have changed by now, x3dom-developers ?
>>> If not, it follows that there would be a large demand for guidance
>>> in terms of documentation, tutorials and perhaps tools on how to
>>> convert/translate PROTOs into x3dom compatible js code or custom
>>> x3dom nodes. I tried to provide some initial pointers but clearly
>>> input by the x3dom group is what is really required.
>>> -Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, <x3d-public-request at web3d.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> Send x3d-public mailing list submissions to
>>>         x3d-public at web3d.org
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>         http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>         x3d-public-request at web3d.org
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>         x3d-public-owner at web3d.org
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of x3d-public digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>    1. Re: [X3D-Public] Prototype (Daniel Vera)
>>>    2.  SSR: server-side rendering (doug sanden)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:31:24 +0000
>>> From: Daniel Vera <d.a.vera at warwick.ac.uk>
>>> To: John Richardson <richards at spawar.navy.mil>
>>> Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [X3D-Public] Prototype
>>> Message-ID: <54DDD27C.1040900 at warwick.ac.uk>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Apologies for reviving an old thread, but in my opinion not having
>>> capability similar to VRML protos is indeed a loss of
>>> functionality;
>>>
>>> Explanation: I am an engineer (industrial production), not a
>>> developer;
>>> VRML PROTO/EXTERNPROTO has allowed our group to build rich 3D based
>>> engineering application using VRML/javascript code only (i.e.
>>> without
>>> the need to go in the depth of coding with low level libraries
>>> etc.).
>>>
>>> (https://www.youtube.com/user/FDSvideosFDS/videos)
>>>
>>> Looking into Andreas links (Box.js code in particular), it seems
>>> the way
>>> to go is to define additional X3DOM nodes, but that requires
>>> understanding X3DOM code, which not every class of users wants or
>>> has
>>> time to do; In my opinion, X3DOM should match the capability
>>> provided by
>>> X3D in defining complex modelling class/object using X3D/javascript
>>> code/syntax only.
>>>
>>> That said, I am open to additional suggestion, discussion or links
>>> to
>>> more information!
>>>
>>> Regards, Daniel
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel
>>> Website,
>>> sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot
>>> Media, is your
>>> hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly
>>> thought
>>> leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more.
>>> Take a
>>> look and join the conversation now.
>>> http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x3dom-developers mailing list
>>> x3dom-developers at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/x3dom-developers
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> Behr, Johannes <mailto:johannes.behr at igd.fraunhofer.de>
> 15 February 2015 17:50
> I totally agree. I also worked on at least three implementations and 
> it's almost impossible to get the behaviour in a consistent way. The 
> concept is powerful but underspecified and a beast by combining 
> sub-classing and aggregation in a single construct.
>
> The questions is, for what kind of content people really need this 
> parameterised deep copy of application data. Or is a real component 
> sufficient.
>
> best regards,
> Johannes
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> Alan Hudson <mailto:alan at shapeways.com>
> 14 February 2015 16:51
> Not too be a hater but I don't think its a good idea to include 
> PROTO's into X3DOM.  The VRML/X3D proto spec + scripting interactions 
> is very hard to get cross platform.  I spent many years dealing with 
> it and its just too much work.  Personally I'd rather see that 
> development time spent elsewhere improving X3DOM.  It's very helpful 
> to be able to define your own vocabulary but as it stands PROTO's are 
> not a proven cross platform way to do it.  Maybe the other web native 
> routes will have better luck.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> Andreas Plesch <mailto:andreasplesch at gmail.com>
> 13 February 2015 20:54
> Indeed, not having a PROTO node is a substantial lack of functionality 
> in the x3dom code base and a loss if compared with standalone x3d 
> browsers. At the risk of misinterpretation, to me it looks like there 
> was conscious decision by the x3dom developers at some early point 
> that the certainly very substantial cost of developing such 
> functionality outweigh the expected benefits. This may have changed by 
> now, x3dom-developers ?
> If not, it follows that there would be a large demand for guidance in 
> terms of documentation, tutorials and perhaps tools on how to 
> convert/translate PROTOs into x3dom compatible js code or custom x3dom 
> nodes. I tried to provide some initial pointers but clearly input by 
> the x3dom group is what is really required.
> -Andreas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20150217/d21fe03f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the x3d-public mailing list