[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

Maxim Fedyukov max at texel.graphics
Thu Dec 29 10:40:22 PST 2016


Hi Joshua,

> COLLADA is simply a better format for 3D data interchange between tools because it is so easily extensible. X3D has always focused on being a runtime format, not a toolchain format. That’s fine, except that demand for an open runtime format is almost non-existent.

That's an interesting point. Do you know a good description for this difference between the two formats, so I could explore it in detail and make a reference in the doc I prepare?

Best regards,
Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
CEO, Texel Inc.
+7.910.403.27.01
max at texel.graphics


-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Smith [mailto:mrjoshuaesmith at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 6:20 PM
To: Maxim Fedyukov
Cc: x3d-public at web3d.org
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

There are two open standards that have had more success than X3D, which seems to have sapped whatever momentum it had.

COLLADA is simply a better format for 3D data interchange between tools because it is so easily extensible. X3D has always focused on being a runtime format, not a toolchain format. That’s fine, except that demand for an open runtime format is almost non-existent.

WebGL is far more flexible than X3D, since it isn’t really a format at all. It’s incredibly easy to port an existing GL 3D engine to WebGL, or to use one of the freely available ones. The engine can use a private format for the 3D data, which eliminates the need for an open format for runtime.

The industry has settled on this architecture:

Modeling tools -> Open interchange through COLLADA -> Conversion to private format -> 3D Engine

The 3D engine could be written in WebGL for the web, or it could be proprietary in an app, or it could be Unity or something like Unity.

And, as Alan pointed out, there are several old stable interchange formats that are also still quite popular because they are old and stable and trivial: OBJ, VRML2, STEP/IGES. In fact, COLLADA seems to be losing momentum as well, while these old formats just keep plodding along.

-Joshua

> 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
> max at texel.graphics
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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