[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

Joe D Williams joedwil at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 28 09:23:41 PST 2016


Hi Maxim,

I certainly agree with Alan's comment. I think we find the XML and 
VRML forms are easy to read and to import.

> Exploring the formats to include into standard recommendations, I
> see that X3D seems to be one of the best candidates.

X3D HAnim captures industry basic best-practice concepts and 
techniques of skeletal animation, seamless skin mesh, deformable mesh 
animation, standardized names and locatons of consistent external and 
internal landmarks for metrics and interaction, and a standardized way 
of providing interfaces for transportable animation routines. These 
are the typical standard capabilities found in all character authoring 
tools. You will find that all character authoring tools use these same 
techniques and essentially the same data. These provide a basis for a 
wide range of applications. The X3D HAnim working group is focused on 
adding new capabilities to the model.

You are invited to join a weekly or monthly phone meeting to discuss 
your humanoid applications and help to add or refine features to cover 
your applications.

> But the main concern here is
> that X3D has not received a wide acceptance of notable software
> applications

Look under the covers and you will see that names may be slightly 
different but all character modelling applications from Bitmanagement 
to Autodesk to Blender to Unity to meshlab and mathlab or whatever use 
the same "biped" data in the same way as defined in X3D HAnim. The 
HAnim component is integrated with the rest of X3D and provides the 
means to capture and maintain the documentation for all character 
construction, interaction, and animation data in a single extensible 
file using a standardized human-readable format.

> I'm writing you as the file format subteam lead of IEEE 3D Body
> Processing
> working group

I'm replying as an invited expert in the HAnim Working group now 
inviting you to look deeper into the HAnim ISO standard and some 
examples to see our coverage. Likewise we would be very interested in 
your discoveries and opinions.

In addition, web3D.org includes an active X3D working group discussing 
standards for 3D printing.

Thank You and Best Regards,
Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Hudson" <alan at shapeways.com>
To: "Maxim Fedyukov" <max at texel.graphics>
Cc: "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption


>I have a theory on format adoption.  What i've seen over the years is 
>that
> simple formats rule.  One might even say dead formats rule as they 
> don't
> change.  I suspect there is a threshold of effort that turns 
> supporting a
> format from a simple project to one that must be approved.  My going 
> theory
> is that any format you can implement in < 1 week just get's done. 
> Above
> that it must be approved and that starts a larger discussion.
>
> I was never very successful in convincing everyone to keep X3D 
> simple and
> am certainly to blame for some of its bloat.  If you choose to spec 
> X3D for
> your project I'd recommend being very focused in your usage.  Spec a 
> simple
> set of components, require one encoding, then write a document that 
> brings
> all the information into one place to help adopters.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Maxim Fedyukov 
> <max at texel.graphics> wrote:
>
>> Vincent, Doug, thank you for your opinions and comments.
>>
>> > Maxim,
>> > https://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/3d/bodyprocessing.html
>> very interesting.
>> > Q. do you have a list of technical requirements for body 
>> > processing?
>> > -Doug
>>
>> The current stage is exactly the formation of a list of technical
>> requirements for 3D body processing. So I'm gathering the 
>> proposition with
>> every option, current pros and contras and the future projections, 
>> as the
>> first standard publishing is planned for Q4 2017.
>>
>> What puzzles me even more is the widespread adoption of VRML, even 
>> in
>> quite new software, which appeared much later than 2005, but still 
>> they
>> have chosen to aim their efforts at adding the support for VRML 
>> and/or
>> VRML2, but not X3D. Do you have an understanding or opinion why 
>> this
>> happens?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
>> CEO, Texel Inc.
>> +7.910.403.27.01
>> max at texel.graphics
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Vincent Marchetti <vmarchetti at kshell.com>
>> Date: 12/27/16 16:34 (GMT+03:00)
>> To: Maxim Fedyukov <max at texel.graphics>, X3D Graphics public 
>> mailing list
>> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption
>>
>> Maxim
>>
>> The question as to why a software application, particularly a 
>> commercial
>> or closed product, chooses to support an exchange or export format 
>> is best
>> answered by those who directly manage the development of those
>> applications. I am sure it involves sales and business development
>> objectives as much or more than direct technical merit. In the open 
>> source
>> and third-party spheres X3D is widely supported. Direct X3D support 
>> by open
>> source packages includes the two you mentioned (Blender, Meshlab), 
>> as well
>> as by Open Cascade,VTK, and Cura 3D Printing software. There are 
>> also a
>> variety of commercial and open source translation products that 
>> provide a
>> route from the native formats of popular commercial products into 
>> X3D.
>> There is a comprehensive list of applications at 
>> http://www.web3d.org/x3d/
>> content/examples/X3dResources.html#Conversions and the Web3D 
>> Consortium
>> website at http://www.web3d.org has additional slide sets and
>> presentations detailing workflows to create X3D content from common
>> commercial and open source software.
>>
>> Vince Marchetti
>> KShell Analysis & Web3D Consortium
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Maxim Fedyukov <max at texel.graphics> 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm writing you as the file format subteam lead of IEEE 3D Body
>> Processing
>> > working group
>> > (https://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/3d/bodyprocessing.html).
>> > Exploring the formats to include into standard recommendations, I 
>> > see
>> that
>> > X3D seems to be one of the best candidates. But the main concern 
>> > here is
>> > that X3D has not received a wide acceptance of notable software
>> applications
>> > besides Blender and MeshLab. Why is it so?
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
>> > CEO, Texel Inc.
>> > +7.910.403.27.01 <+7%20910%20403-27-01>
>> > max at texel.graphics
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
> 




More information about the x3d-public mailing list