[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[Joe D Williams]

> X3D has always focused on being a runtime format, not a toolchain 
> format.

Sure it is a runtime fomat, that is a top goal, but that is just a 
benifit of the idea of putting the 'standad' data in a 'standard' 
form. Like naming the index and the points in a strongly typed fields 
rather than a raw array. Another example is HAnim where the fields 
that are used to define the skeleton and skin and bindings are all in 
the same human-readable file rather than someting like a collection of 
fbx mtl obj bvh and whatever else or all that into Collada fields.

All Best,
Joe




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maxim Fedyukov" <max at texel.graphics>
To: "'Joshua Smith'" <mrjoshuaesmith at gmail.com>
Cc: <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption


> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>