[x3d-public] ] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML integration

[Philipp Slusallek]

[Resent, as the original email was apparently not relayed through the list]

Hi Joe, all,

Am 13.06.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Joe D Williams:
>> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowSkin/xflow-skin.html
>> for
>> simple skinned and animated characters
> 
> I don't see it. There are things jumping around, but from code think not
> skeletons with skin but just geometries dragged from frame to frame.
> Maybe the code is in the protos? Looks like it could be generated by
> something that used skeletal animation but just exported geometry for
> some keyframes. Anyway, I can't find the desired interfaces, like how is
> the skeleton composed, how is the skin bound, how do I control the
> animations, do my personal animations stand a chance of working in those
> rigs? All the questions I consider basic are not there or very far down
> in the reading. So show me the code for a skeleton, please,

Joe, I love your friedly style :-(. Just dig a tiny bit deeper, please:
Indeed the code is behind the protos.xml link
(https://github.com/xml3d/xml3d-examples/blob/master/examples/xflowSkin/protos.xml).
Just open it and the flowgraph is right in front of your eyes -- as nice
and compact as it gets.

It defines its own interface of what data it takes and applies a
sequence of operations to the data. Note, that it is a functional
representation (and not a generic script) and thus sideeffect free and
can nicely be analyzed. The <dataflow> element is an extension to what
is in the paper and is documented in our spec (see below).

The operators used are pretty selfexplanatory: The data flow computes
the inverse transformation matricies of each bone transformation given
separately as translation and rotations (I guess that is how they where
provided in the game). It then applies the forward kinematics to get the
final world transforms for each bone. It does so for the bind pose as
well as for the actual transformations (again trans and rot)
interpolated from the input data and multiplies them. Finally, skinning
is applied for position and normal. Adding another skinning operator
(e.g. for tangents) would add exactly one more line.

It seems that the operator could be optimized by taking the first two
lines out as they only need to happen once and not for every frame. But
this is an optimization that is happening within Xflow automatically. If
a part of the flowgraph defined by the dependencies between the
operators is not changed, its data is not recomputed. It is using the
push-pull model do determine what is changes, as described in the paper.

Is this the final best way for doing skeleton animations? No, it does
not even try to be that. It simply is the set of operations that are
required for this specific operation given the set of input data as from
the game. This is actually a good thing, as you can do skeleton
animation and skinning even if your data does not comply to the Hanim
spec, simply by changing this flowgraph a bit.

Note that the compute element is NOT a script but a convenient way to
build a flowgraph without adding to many of the individual data nodes as
defined in the paper.


BTW, all this is nicely documented in our current spec at
(http://xml3d.org/xml3d/specification/latest/#dataflow-graph-xflow).
Note that this spec is already in W3C style and the examples used in
describing Xflow happens to be the one from this demo.

And I am sure you can complain about the spec, if you want. Its not
perfect. Go ahead.


And while I am at it, here is how it is applied in the scene
(https://github.com/xml3d/xml3d-examples/blob/master/examples/xflowSkin/xflow-skin.html/).
For each character (see comments with their names), it first creates a
data flow that computes the entire mesh using a specific ID (e.g.
heavySkinned). The following nodes then reuse this complete mesh and
skinned mesh by referencing it
   <data src="#heavySkinned"></data
select a subset of inicies from this mesh by simply adding a new data
element that provides the indicies for that specific part of the body
and apply a special material to it. This is repeated for each part of
the body.

Finally, at the end of the file its has a list of elements with the key
values (time) of each character (e.g. keyHeavy) and keeps updating them
based on the current time modulus the maximum animation time of each
character.

BTW, you can put such a specification for an entire character into an
<asset> element and reference this in its entirety without having to
look at the details. You see how this looks like in the Recursive Asset
example
(https://github.com/xml3d/xml3d-examples/blob/master/examples/recursiveAsset/recursive.html/).
It simply places several of the Sniper chacters relativ to each other in
a hierarchical way. In that way we also drive the animation in a more
flexible way and at different speeds.


In respect to the term "generic data". Please, please, please finally
read the paper and we can talk again.

Here is my definition of generic: Mapping Hanim to your structure using
a slightly different flowgraph as the one explained above is almost
trivial and very compact and runtime efficient without a single
specialized node. On the other hand, using Hanim or any other part of
X3D to implement a different skinning mode is hard to almost impossible
and would require custom code to be efficient. I guess lots of routes
and skripts could eventually do it too but this would likely be very
inefficient and not be amendable to be mapped to the GPU automatically.


Finally, regarding your praise of Hanim: Yes its been very useful,
indeed. I am not criticising this at all. BUt you have to distinguis
between defining a common reference model (which is very useful) and
offering the only option to do things. As you know, there are other ways
of doing skinning and they are better and more efficient in some
situations, depending what you input is and output should be. Sometimes
you want to do things that are not following your "standard". All I am
saying is that this should be possible and efficient, especially with
very powerful programmable GPUs underneath you. Why not expose their
functionality in a clean and elegant way, to be used in a scene graph.

Why must a something define one way of handling things as the only true
way of doing it? Why not offer a way to use any of them, putting this in
a nice <dataflow> element and just use it with the original input data,
compute the output data needed for what I want to do in a shader, and
map most of the processing onto the GPU automatically? This is pretty
hard to do in X3D which defines the "one true way" as a special node and
expects eveyone to follow this. Now, of course, you are free to do this.
We are simply pointing out that there are other ways that seem much more
powerful and flexible.

Take it or leave it. But please before making this decison, try to look
at it and understand it first.


Best,

	Philipp

P.S.: I will not have the time engage this much forever. I am not
pushing this onto you. I am simply pointing out that there are things
outside of X3D that offer options that seem to be useful for a new
version. Take it of leave it, but check it out first.



> From the spec, It is important that the skeleton be well defined in
> terms of names, locations, and interfaces. To me, the great thing about
> the x3d representation is clarity about the naming and location of
> features, and even an initial pose so that animations can be easily
> transported between characters.
> 
>> Hanim has
>> selected one specific way of describing and handling animation and
>> skinning, which requires a node-specific implementation.
> 
> Right, hanim documented the best practices for handling skeleton, and
> animation, and skinning, I mean for years x3d does it the same way
> because these are the parameters for the way that everybody does it.
> 
> So, it started long ago with the idea that researchers needed a
> standardized skeleton that would serve for producing a computable
> replacement for a mechanical armature in humanoid simulations. With
> medical and robotic folks also involved, they decided to pick a
> realistic representation that was widely accepted. The hanim and X3D
> standards use as the example a 'standard' humanoid with 'typical'
> dimensions in a realistic humanoid hierarchy, This was easy for VRML and
> X3D with a Humanoid container holding skeleton and skin and some other
> stuffs.
> 
> Skeleton is realistic hierarchy of Joints, Segments, and Sites. Defining
> the default initial pose was not easy but finally, the choice was
> probably an artifact of the method used to obtain the greatast share of
> samples to define typical joint and surface feature locations. Anyway,
> some of the names have changed (segment instead of bone) and some under
> the covers stuffs exposed, but basically x3d hanim is indusry-standard
> best practices for complete documentation of a realtime animated character.
> 
> Later this has evolved for skeleton structures to serve as the basic
> model for motion capture data and as the corresponding structure for the
> mocap playback model.
> 
> I mean, this hanim has been the world standard for transportablity of
> basic structures and basic functionality. Wouldn't you expect to get
> something that represents the core factors for what most all realtime
> character animation tools would give you when you start with any default
> (fantasitc that there are now so many) humanoid or biped or something of
> that category? Of course, and that is true. See X3D HAnim LOA2. Some
> names are changed, but that is the generic skeleton.
> 
> The names may be changed or some hidden interfaces exposed, but if you
> look close you will see that x3d hanim does indeed represent complete
> documentation required to build and animate the character. That can be
> important when you wish to carry your work from one commercial or open
> product to another. I mean you used to have to beg for binding and
> animation curves. At some authoring levels sometimes you can't even see
> that stuff.
> 
> Whatever the authoring system internal data forms, if they rig skin,
> then there may or may not be a human readable and kestroke editable
> listing of the skin vertex bindings and weights. X3D just says that this
> very basic stuff has to be in the flie in a logical place and reasonable
> form. Any authoring system worthy of your trust should be able to give
> you that list just in case you wanted to work with another tool and use
> your old rigging. Why is it so carefully defined in x3d hanim? Because
> that is the best way to preserve that type of data since basically,
> everybody has to do it that way down at the metal, to move the points ro
> positions that depend upon what time appears in the next frame.
> 
> That's just way it is. The basic data in close to executable form
> readable and editable is what x3d hanim requires. Since it is so basic,
> data should be able to be exchanged between most any set of authoring
> tools and it is. Of course there might be some new technique(s) because
> the things advance, but those techniques either remain proprietary of
> have not yet made it into the public open source community so would ot
> appear in X3D.
> 
> No outright challenge here but look at what you get when you start with
> the default humanoid in any authoring system. Some might hook up the
> joints slightly differently with other names or use some other space
> than 'standard' hanim humanoid space but the basic goal is realism, Hey,
> I think best results when everything is drawn in 'standard' human space,
> dimensioned for your preferences. Like the hanim end-effector surface
> features are there because experimeters wanted to be able to define an
> actual location in human space relative to the skeleton. That was where
> the virtual doctor could touch the virtual surgical tool. Anyway, by the
> time the standard was set, it was pretty much decided that real machines
> would use quats to anmate but X3D stayed with axis-angle as the minimum
> requirement for transporting realtime animations (realtime always needs
> interpolators and all inbetweens, so sorry euler angles).
> 
> A Transform extended to a Joint adds some technical features and the
> hierarchal structure of Joint, connecting Segment, and Site(s) for
> surface and internal features are all standard vrml/x3d. Using the names
> Humanoid. Joint, Segment, and Site as names for the major
> functionalities of the basic humanoid with geometries bound to segments
> is accomplished by extending Transform using simple prototypes. To do
> the skin needs some pretty standard gem script to move the skin points
> as the skeleton is animated .
> 
> I mean that all the information about mesh and binding and what is
> supposed to happen when it is supposed to happen is very nicely
> composed. Of course x3d hanim is always interested in new names and
> locations and styles or techniques that are missing from anywhere in
> x3d, but basically it is all there. This reflects the data that is
> actually used to create the character and realtime animations in
> human-readable form. And it matches up with detailed vizualization
> technolofies like medical and cad and physics and is completely collada
> friendly.
> 
> As I said, the example I am interested in exploring is relatively simple
> and from what I have seen (with conversion from axis-angle to unitquats)
> can probably be represented lossless in glTF.
> 
>> But this generic data design also allows for creating these
>> abstractions that would be much harder (if not impossible) to do with
>> the specialized approach that X3D is based on.
> 
> X3D is a generic data design because it defines generic forms of data
> needed to make and animate a common character. The data is indeed
> generic and no character animation that can produce animated characters
> is missing any of this data. Absent proprietary technology they all use
> a skeleton and they all have geometry bound to connecting things, and
> they all use the same skin bindings.
> 
> What is specialized? The names and hierarchy? Well the names are
> probably specialized but the hierarchy and bindings are not. If i read
> the above right, then _if_ the generic data design has hard times with
> the x3d approach of containing the data then the generic data design has
> big problems. I don't think that is what you said, but what part of the
> x3d data design is harder? Overall, the hanim is a very generic data
> design using very generic 3D hierarchies. Hanim is not at all an unusual
> or non-generic scenegraph structure or data structure so I don't
> understand the problem.
> 
> Besides, please look at some browsers that do a great job with x3d
> hanim. There were several more before they went missing.
> 
> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.txt
> 
> is the text version of the example I am most interested in, in classic
> encoding because I thinki is easier to read. Don't use word wrap.
> 
> In reality, I don't care how the data is stored for runtime execution, I
> care about the readability of the documentation created at authortime.
> Sure, X3D HAnim may take a while to learn to read because the structure
> is complicated, but all time is not wasted because these are types of
> data common to most all efforts of humanoid animation.
> 
> One piece of automation also used in character animation is precise,
> time-driven animation of parts of a geometry, like when a piece of skin
> to move independently of any joint rotations, In HAnim this is done by
> Displacer, You tell it which points to move and how much to move them
> then send it a weight, This is an important little tool. Again, the data
> and technique just represents a common way to do it. How would your
> project define such as operation?
> 
> Thanks and Best,
> Joe
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philipp Slusallek"
> <philipp.slusallek at dfki.de>
> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>; "doug sanden"
> <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'"
> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public]] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML
> integration
> 
> 
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I believe it may even be illuminating to just read a paper to understand
>> the principles of other technologies and consider them for your own
>> design. Also, some more openness to other available technology besides
>> X3D would actually help the discussion here.
>>
>> But we actually do have an implementation as well, which is used in many
>> of our projects: See for example
>> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowSkin/xflow-skin.html
>> for
>> simple skinned and animated characters that are handled using Xflow to
>> describe the required processing on the triangle meshes. These are
>> animated characters exported to XML3D/Xflow directly from a well-known
>> game.
>>
>> This is just one of many ways of how Xflow can be used. Really, the main
>> point of Xflow is the ability to describe very different processing
>> operations on various data sets in a scene in a declarative way. There
>> are also examples for image processing (e.g.
>> https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowIP/histogramm.html),
>> simple
>> Augmented Reality
>> (https://xml3d.github.io/xml3d-examples/examples/xflowAR/ar_flying_teapot.html),
>>
>> and others using the exact same basic technique. Our ongoing work will
>> make this even simpler and support different HW mappings better.
>>
>> This is made possible by the generic data model in XML3D that I have
>> alluded to several times in my email. It is already useful as nice
>> abstraction of GPU buffers but also allows for supporting programmable
>> shading. But this generic data design also allows for creating these
>> abstractions that would be much harder (if not impossible) to do with
>> the specialized approach that X3D is based on. However, it does work the
>> other way round: You can map the specialized nodes of X3D to the more
>> general and generic functionality of XML3D/Xflow.
>>
>> I think this highlights the difference between our approaches: Hanim has
>> selected one specific way of describing and handling animation and
>> skinning, which requires a node-specific implementation. On the other
>> hand, we provide a small core engine for any such processing and expose
>> it in a compact and declarative way. The engine can then analyze and
>> optimize the resulting flow-graph, optimize it, and map it to the
>> available HW independent of what the specific computation and up
>> representing. On top of this, one can then use WebComponents to map any
>> specific representation (such as Hanim) to this generic representation.
>>
>> We also did a careful analysis and comparison to X3D/Hanim in our papers
>> (see below for the links). There are several issues that we identify:
>> Need to duplicate the geometry to apply different animations to the same
>> model, or the fact that Hanim cannot handle tangent vectors as part of
>> the model, which may be required if a model has anisotropic materials
>> that need the transformed tangent vectors as vertex attributes for the
>> shader. It is very straight forward to add such processing to an Xflow
>> graph. There are more arguments in the paper.
>>
>> We also argue in the paper that Xflow is expressive enough to handle
>> Hanim. Doing a full WebComponent implementation for Hanim is left as an
>> exercise for the reader :-). While certainly useful, we do not see this
>> as the main target of our research work, sorry. But it should not be a
>> difficult exercise.
>>
>> BTW, the relevant papers are here:
>> -- 
>> https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/fileadmin/cguds/papers/2012/klein_web3d2012/xflow.pdf
>>
>> -- 
>> https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/fileadmin/cguds/papers/2013/klein_web3d2013/xflow-ar.pdf
>>
>>
>> There is also a IEEE CG&A extended version of the first paper here:
>> -- https://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/cg/2013/05/mcg2013050038.pdf
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Philipp
>>
>> Am 12.06.2016 um 05:52 schrieb Joe D Williams:
>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>
>>> I would study some of your work, but please help me esablish this
>>> confidence by showing me what you can do with some relatively complex
>>> X3D. This is skeleton animation of joints and segments as used
>>> everywhere (no matter which interfaces are actually exposed by the
>>> authoring system) and a deformable mesh skin bound to the skeleton and
>>> each skin vertex bound to one or more joint(s) nodes.
>>>
>>> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19774/V1.0/HAnim/ObjectInterfaces.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Skin animation is achieved by animating the joints in the skeleton's
>>> joint hierarachy then weighting each skin vertex displacement according
>>> to the bound joint(s) rotation (as used everywhere no matter which
>>> interfaces are actually exposed by the authoring system).
>>>
>>> some basics are here:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_animation
>>>
>>> is pretty much what X3D does either/both segment geometry (none on this
>>> model) or skin, like this one, and represents complete documentation of
>>> the model rigging and animations. Relative to the rest of the world of
>>> character authoring and animation X3D covers a lot of ground. The only
>>> 'probem' I know X3D has is that we do not use quaterions for joint
>>> animation, which is now more or less industry glTF standard instead of
>>> axis-angle used here. Well, also see that while the interpolators are
>>> linear, the keytimes may not always be constant intervals.
>>>
>>> A couple of X3D browsers will do this fine and BSContact free is my
>>> reference.
>>>
>>> This is a 'standard' LOA3 skeleton with skin vertices mostly taken from
>>> 'standard' surface feature points. Both skeleton and skin are drawn in
>>> approximately human scale, using the spec example dimensions as a basis.
>>> I use an IndexedFaceSet for the skin mesh and depend upon the 'standard'
>>> X3D browser feature of IFS to generate a default texure map so the
>>> texture stays bound to the skin as it moves.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I hope you can take a look at this because implementation of
>>> this basic character animation stuff is really not that easy and in the
>>> past we have seen X3D browser development stall at implementation of
>>> skeleton based skin animation. Note the hanim displacer node also does
>>> mesh deformation.
>>>
>>> Example is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.x3dv
>>>
>>> and attached.
>>>
>>> I can get it in .x3d but this version has better documentation of the
>>> skin-joint bindings.
>>>
>>> Thanks and Best,
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philipp Slusallek"
>>> <philipp.slusallek at dfki.de>
>>> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>; "doug sanden"
>>> <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'"
>>> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 3:17 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML
>>> integration
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the good discussion.
>>>>
>>>> But may I humbly suggest that you read our Xflow papers. We have looked
>>>> at this problem very carefully and tried different options with
>>>> Xflow as
>>>> the result of this. Xflow describes a generic data modeling and
>>>> processing framework as a direct extension to HTML. It is even
>>>> independent of XML3D conceptually. I would even call it the most
>>>> important parts of our system.
>>>>
>>>> Its data representation is very close to GPU buffers (by design) and we
>>>> have shown that it can be mapped efficiently to very different
>>>> acceleration API (including plain JS, asm.js, ParallelJS, vertex
>>>> shaders, and others).The reason is that it is a pure functional design
>>>> that is hard to do with X3D Routes for various reasons (discussed in
>>>> the
>>>> papers).
>>>>
>>>> Morphing, skinning, and image processing were actually the first
>>>> examples that we showed how to do with the system. Hanim can be easily
>>>> mapped to Xflow (e.g. by a WebComponent), from where it can take
>>>> advantage of the generic HW acceleration without any further coding.
>>>> All
>>>> that is left on the JS side is a bit of bookkeeping, attribute updates,
>>>> and the WebGL calls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And with regard to the need of native implementations as raised by you
>>>> earlier: On a plain PC we could do something like 40-50 (would have to
>>>> check the exact number) fairly detailed animated characters, each with
>>>> their own morphing and skinning in a single scene in pure JS, even
>>>> WITHOUT ANY ACCELERATION AT ALL, including rendering and all other
>>>> stuff. Yes, faster and more efficient is always better, but (i) we
>>>> should not do any premature optimizations unless we can show that it
>>>> would actually make a big difference and (ii) this will not be easy as
>>>> you should not underestimate the performance of JS with really good JIT
>>>> compiler and well-formed code.
>>>>
>>>> Unless we have SHOWN that there is a real problem, that JS CANNOT be
>>>> pushed further AND there is sufficient significant interest by a large
>>>> user base, the browser vendors will not even talk to us about a native
>>>> implementation. And maintaining a fork is really, really hard --  trust
>>>> me that is where we started :-(.
>>>>
>>>> And even more importantly, when we should ever get there we should
>>>> better have an implementation core that is as small as possible. Many
>>>> node types each with its own implementation is not the right design for
>>>> that (IMHO). Something like Xflow that many nodes and routes could be
>>>> mapped to seems, a much more useful and maintainable option.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right now we are extending shade.js in a project with Intel to also
>>>> handle the Xflow processing algorithms to be more general, which should
>>>> allow us to have a single code that targets all possible acceleration
>>>> targets. Right now you still need separate implementations for each
>>>> target.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Philipp
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.06.2016 um 19:26 schrieb Joe D Williams:
>>>>>> e6 html integration > route/event/timer
>>>>>
>>>>> These are details solved declaratively using .x3d using the
>>>>> abstractions
>>>>> of node event in and outs, timesensors, routes, interpolators,
>>>>> shaders,
>>>>> and Script directOuts...
>>>>>
>>>>> in the <x3d> ... </x3d> environment, everything hat is not
>>>>> 'built-in' is
>>>>> created programatically using 'built-in' event emitters, event
>>>>> listeners, event processors, time devices, scripts, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the big difference in event systems might be that in .html the time
>>>>> answers what time was it in the world when you last checked the time,
>>>>> while in ,x3d it is the time to use in creation of the next frame. So
>>>>> this declarative vs programatic just sets a low limit on how much
>>>>> animation automation ought to be included. Both .x3d and <x3d> ,,,
>>>>> </x3d> should preserve the basic event graph declarations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This brings up where to stash these organizable lists of routes and
>>>>> interpolators.
>>>>> The user code of .html is not really designed for these detailed
>>>>> constructions and its basic premise is that the document should
>>>>> contain
>>>>> content, not massses of markup. So, are timers and interpolators and
>>>>> routes as used in .x3d content or markup? If they are markup, then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> clear they should be in style. Besides, in my trusty text editor this
>>>>> gives me a easily read independent event graph to play with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next, if I need to step outside the 'built-in' convenience
>>>>> abstractions,
>>>>> or simply to communicate with other players in the DOM which
>>>>> happens to
>>>>> be the current embeddiment of my <x3d> ,,, </x3d> then I need DOM
>>>>> event
>>>>> stuffs and probably a DOM script to deal with DOM events set on x3d
>>>>> syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, to me this is the first step: Decide how much of the automation is
>>>>> actually included within <x3d> ... </x3d>?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe one example is x3d hanim where we define real skin vertices
>>>>> bound
>>>>> to real joints to achieve realistic deformable skin. In HAnim the
>>>>> first
>>>>> level of animation complexity is a realistic skeleton of joints with
>>>>> simple binding of shapes to segments in a heirarchy where joint center
>>>>> rotations can produce realitic movements of the skeleton. As a joint
>>>>> center rotates then its children segments and joints move as expected
>>>>> for the skeleton dynamics. For seamless animations across segment
>>>>> shapes, then the technique is to bind each skin vertex to one or more
>>>>> joint objects, then move the skin some weighted displacement as the
>>>>> joint(s) center(s) rotates.
>>>>>
>>>>> To document this completely in human-readable and editable form, as is
>>>>> the goal of .x3d HAnim, is very tedious, but that is exactly how it is
>>>>> actually finally computed in the wide world of rigging and in
>>>>> computationally intensive. Thus, it makes sense for <x3d> ...
>>>>> </x3d> to
>>>>> support shapes bound to segments that are children of joints but not
>>>>> demand full support for deformable skin. Hopefully the javascript
>>>>> programmers that are now building the basic foundations to support x3d
>>>>> using webgl features will prove me wrong, but without very high
>>>>> performance support for reasonable density deformable skin, this does
>>>>> not need to be supported in the (2.) html environment. Of course
>>>>> standalone and embeddable players can do this because they will have
>>>>> access to the high performance code and acceleration that may not be
>>>>> available in .html with webgl.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for thinking about this stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/hanimLOA3A8320130611Allanimtests.x3dv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/hanimLOA3A8320130611Allanimtests.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.hypermultimedia.com/x3d/hanim/JoeH-AnimKick1a.x3dv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "doug sanden"
>>>>> <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
>>>>> To: "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 7:03 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] [x3d] V4.0 Opendiscussion/workshopon X3DHTML
>>>>> integration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3-step 'Creative Strategy'
>>>>> http://cup.columbia.edu/book/creative-strategy/9780231160520
>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/airdrieinnovationinstitute/creative-strategy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. break it down (into problem elements)
>>>>> 2. search (other domains for element solutions)
>>>>> 3. recombine (element solutions into total solution)
>>>>>
>>>>> e - problem element
>>>>> d - domain offering solution(s) to problem elements
>>>>> e-d matrix
>>>>> ______d1________d2______d3__________d4
>>>>> e1
>>>>> e2
>>>>> e3
>>>>> e4
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied to what I think is the overall problem: 'which v4
>>>>> technologies/specifications' or 'gaining consensus on v4 before
>>>>> siggraph'.
>>>>> I don't know if that's the only problem or _the_ problem, so this will
>>>>> be more of an exercise to see if Creative Strategy works in the real
>>>>> world, by using what I can piece together from what your're saying
>>>>> as an
>>>>> example.
>>>>> Then I'll leave it to you guys to go through the 3 steps for whatever
>>>>> the true problems are.
>>>>> Problem: v4 specification finalization
>>>>> Step1 break it down:
>>>>> e1 continuity/stability in changing/shifting and multiplying target
>>>>> technologies
>>>>> e2 html integration > protos
>>>>> e3 html integration > proto scripts
>>>>> e4 html integration > inline vs Dom
>>>>> e5 html integration > node/component simplification
>>>>> e6 html integration > route/event/timer
>>>>> e7 html integration > feature simplification ie SAI
>>>>> e8 siggraph promotion opportunity, among/against competing 3D
>>>>> formats /
>>>>> tools
>>>>>
>>>>> Step 2 search other domains
>>>>> d1 compiler domain > take a high-level cross platform language and
>>>>> compile it for target CPU ARM, x86, x64
>>>>> d2 wrangling: opengl extension wrangler domain > add extensions to 15
>>>>> year old opengl32.dll to make it modern opengl
>>>>> d3 polyfill: web browser technologies > polyfill - program against an
>>>>> assumed modern browser, and use polyfill.js to discover current
>>>>> browser
>>>>> capaiblities and fill in any gaps by emulating
>>>>> d4 unrolling: mangled-name copies pasted into same scope - don't know
>>>>> what domain its from, but what John is doing when proto-expanding, its
>>>>> like what freewrl did for 10 years for protos
>>>>> d5 adware / iframe / webcomponents > separate scopes
>>>>> -
>>>>> https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/07/14/bringing-componentization-to-the-web-an-overview-of-web-components/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> http://www.benfarrell.com/2015/10/26/es6-web-components-part-1-a-man-without-a-framework/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - React, dojo, polymer, angular, es6, webcomponents.js polyfill,
>>>>> shadoow
>>>>> dom,import, same-origin iframe
>>>>>
>>>>> d6 server > when a client wants something, and says what its
>>>>> capabilities are, then serve them what they are capable of displaying
>>>>> d7 viral videos
>>>>>
>>>>> (its hard to do a table in turtle graphics, so I'll do e/d lists)
>>>>> e1 / d1 compiler: have one high level format which is technology
>>>>> agnostic, with LTS long term stablility, and compile/translate to all
>>>>> other formats which are more technology dependent. Need to show/prove
>>>>> the high level can be transformed/ is transformable to all desired
>>>>> targets like html Dom variants, html Inline variants, and desktop
>>>>> variants
>>>>> e4 / d1 including compiling to inline or dom variants
>>>>> e1 / d6 server-time transformation or selection: gets client
>>>>> capabilities in request, and either
>>>>> - a) transforms a generic format to target capabilities variant or
>>>>> - b) selects from among prepared variants to match target
>>>>> capaibilties,
>>>>> e5 / d1 compiler: can compile static geometry from high level
>>>>> nurbs/extrusions to indexedfaceset depending on target capabilities,
>>>>> need to have a STATIC keyword in case extrusion is animated?
>>>>> e6 / d1 compiler transforms routes, timers, events to target platform
>>>>> equivalents
>>>>>
>>>>> e5 / d2 extension wrangling > depending on capaiblities of target,
>>>>> during transform stage, substitute Protos for high level nodes, when
>>>>> target browser can't support the component/level directly
>>>>> e5 / d3 polyfill > when a target doesn't support some feature,
>>>>> polyfill
>>>>> so it runs enough to support a stable format
>>>>>
>>>>> e8 / d7 create viral video of web3d consortium
>>>>> deciding/trying-to-decide
>>>>> something. Maybe creative strategy step 3: decide among matrix
>>>>> elements
>>>>> at a session at siggraph with audience watching or participating in
>>>>> special "help us decide" siggraph session.
>>>>>
>>>>> e2 / d5 webcomponents and proto scripts: create scripts with/in
>>>>> different webcomponent scope;
>>>>> e3 / d5 webcomponents make Scene and ProtoInstance both in a
>>>>> webcomponent, with hierarchy of webcomponents for nested
>>>>> protoInstances.
>>>>> e2+e3 / d4 unrolling + protos > unroll protos and scripts a)
>>>>> upstream/on
>>>>> server or transformer b) in client on demand
>>>>>
>>>>> e7 / d6 server simplifies featuers ie SAI or not based on client
>>>>> capabilities
>>>>> e7 / d1 compiler compiles out features not supported by target client
>>>>>
>>>>> ____d1___d2___d3___d4___d5___d6___d7
>>>>> e1 __ * _______________________ *
>>>>> e2 _________________ *___*
>>>>> e3 _________________ *___*
>>>>> e4 _*
>>>>> e5 _*_____*____*
>>>>> e6 _*
>>>>> e7 _*_________________________*
>>>>> e8 ________________________________*
>>>>>
>>>>> Or something like that,
>>>>> But would Step 3 creatively recombine element solutions into total
>>>>> solution still result in deadlock? Or can that deadlock be one of the
>>>>> problem elements, and domain solutions applied? For example does the
>>>>> compiler/transformer workflow idea automatically solve current
>>>>> deadlock,
>>>>> or does deadlock need more specific attention ie breakdown into
>>>>> elements
>>>>> of deadlock, searching domains for solutions to deadlock elements etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>> -Doug
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
>>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
>>>>
>>>> Geschäftsführung:
>>>>  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>>>>  Dr. Walter Olthoff
>>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>>>  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>>>
>>>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
>>>> VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
>> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
>>
>> Geschäftsführung:
>>  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
>>  Dr. Walter Olthoff
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
>>
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
>> VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern

Geschäftsführung:
  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
  Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern

Geschäftsführung:
  Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
  Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
  Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313)
VAT/USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148 646 973, Steuernummer:  19/673/0060/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------