[x3d-public] Non-Hand Coding of X3D

[Joe D Williams]

> > Animation is a current problem. The SRC does not hold animations. 
> > The
> only widely used format that does combined with model data is FBX. 
> That
> is something that needs to be developed, but there are several 
> things
> that need to come first.

Check Collada and GLtf.
The only problem is that these transport quaterions rather than 
axis-angle.
That is the biggest hole right now: X3D should hadle quats natively.

Thanks,
Joe



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leonard Daly" <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
To: "John Carlson" <yottzumm at gmail.com>
Cc: "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Non-Hand Coding of X3D


> John,
>
> Just to address a few of your points.
>
> I don't see the functionality currently available with PROTOs and
> Scripts going away. I see it increasing because HTML Scripts can 
> easily
> add nodes to the DOM. There have been several discussions on the 
> topic
> of PROTOs. I see a proto-expander or MACRO as being a great addition 
> to
> V4. It is also possible to easily provide that sort of service via 
> an
> HTML Script or new custom-implemented node. If the new node is a
> collection of existing nodes (say Yves pyramid node), then the
> supporting code to create and parse that node is very easy to write 
> in
> X3DOM.
>
> I can see a shared library of useful nodes that sites on top of X3D 
> and
> is available to the user as either nodes or HTML scripts.
>
> I would like to see X3D accept a wide variety of data formats, even 
> if
> some translation/conversion needs to occur. Using InstantReality it 
> is
> possible to go from X3D, OBJ, FBX and perhaps others to SRC. SRC is 
> a
> good format for injestion because it moves quickly to WebGL. X3D is 
> to
> remain ISO standardized. No other 3D format and run-time can state 
> that.
>
> Animation is a current problem. The SRC does not hold animations. 
> The
> only widely used format that does combined with model data is FBX. 
> That
> is something that needs to be developed, but there are several 
> things
> that need to come first.
>
>
> Leonard Daly
>
>
>
>
>
>> You make good points Leonard.  How would you differentiate V4 from
>> Collada in that case?    My understanding is that X3D provides for
>> declarative app development. This is one reason we are moving 
>> towards
>> the web, to open X3D up to more app developers.  What is important 
>> for
>> declarative app development?  Protos, Templates, Web Components and
>> associated scripts, essentially *shared behavior*.  If you have a
>> virtual world, you might certainly have exactly one of everything.
>>  However, it’s easier to instantiate Protos or Templates, I think.
>> The trick is to only mention the creation a few times (once) with
>> templates or web components, and let the environment expand it into
>> multiple instances through templated transforms and 
>> parameterization.
>>  I don’t want to see 400 ProtoInstances of cylinders in code, 
>> unless
>> it’s generated (HTML).  X3D *should* be associated with a data 
>> format
>> for pure data, like D3.js has several, and transforming pure data 
>> into
>> 3D.  I know I have different requirements, but I think X3D V4 
>> should
>> be designed for scaling things up—not only shapes and transforms, 
>> but
>> coordinates and polygons as well (SRC). Is any other format in
>> position to provide for such scaling without killing memory or
>> diskspace?  Models are certainly moving towards SRC. If you are
>> concerned about animation, what’s the best way to provide for
>> animation coming from these tools?   We have your proposed nodes. 
>> Are
>> these sufficient?   Should we start looking more at creating 
>> exporters
>> for animation beyond just models?  What animation exporters to X3D 
>> are
>> already out there?
>>
>> John
>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Leonard Daly 
>>> <Leonard.Daly at realism.com
>>> <mailto:Leonard.Daly at realism.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There seems to be some confusion about my statements about not
>>> hand-coding certain things.
>>>
>>> I have stated that models and animations are not hand-coded 
>>> anymore.
>>> That statement does not mean it can't be done, but there are many
>>> tools that do it, including open-source ones. There is no way 
>>> someone
>>> is going to hand-code models such as you can see at
>>> http://www.blendswap.com/blends/index. Hand coding models to be
>>> printed is also not a good idea because things will probably not 
>>> line
>>> up correctly.
>>>
>>> Animation is the same thing. Yes you can animate by hand-coding 
>>> all
>>> of the motions and deformations, but that is not how it is done. 
>>> If
>>> X3D is to get any acceptance into the professional marketplace it
>>> MUST work with application generated models and animations. There
>>> will still be some important animations that are hand coded (e.g.,
>>> camera motions, automated systems, etc.).
>>>
>>> Nothing I have done in working out the V4 proposal precludes
>>> hand-coding of animation or modeling. It does not provide a lot of
>>> convenience features/nodes to make complex work simple. In the
>>> marketplace, it is much simpler to get someone to do the model or
>>> animation in a tool.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> *Leonard Daly*
>>> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
>>> X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
>>> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
>>> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org <mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>
>
> -- 
> *Leonard Daly*
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
> LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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