[x3d-public] Presentation from SVVR2017 (Leonard Daly)
Michael Aratow
maratow at noegenesis.com
Thu Apr 13 20:50:51 PDT 2017
Great points!!
Sounds like a combination of the two is best.
I am afraid that if there is not strong advocacy for the strengths of
both, we will wind up with A-Frame only and unless it is somehow
extended will hobble rich webVR worlds for a longer time than necessary.
On 4/13/17 8:02 PM, Leonard Daly wrote:
> On 4/13/2017 6:55 PM, Michael Aratow wrote:
>>
>> Do we really need to have both A-Frame and X3D? This seems to be
>> making things unnecessarily complicated for VR content authors.
>> Either one or the other or something that is a combination of the two?
>>
>
> [Usual caveats apply here -- this is a discussion of displaying 3D in
> a web browser environment using a declarative HTML-like language.]
>
> Only one will end up surviving.
>
> A-Frame is simple, easy to understand, and supported by some very
> large and influential organizations
>
> X3D is complex, fully declarative, rich environment and is frequently
> never heard of or ignored.
>
> A-Frame is not currently capable of handling (without coding)
> Geospatial, volume, CAD, metadata, and 3D printing (though it is
> usually the just the models that are printed).
>
> A-Frame's component system isolates individual elements of the scene.
> It is difficult to impossible to build up a composite structure of
> multiple elements. In X3D this is done as a Transform containing
> another Transform containing ... So far, I have not found a way to
> even Group elements together; however, it may be beyond where my
> detailed reading has taken me so far.
>
> So far, I believe that it is difficult (or impossible) to have your
> model in X3D and express it in A-Frame. I believe that it is possible
> to have a separate file that is just a model and load that (as
> geometry or geometry+texture). I think traditional X3D (rigid-body,
> key-frame) animation cannot be done in A-Frame on pieces of X3D models.
>
> I am trying to get at the basic philosophy of X3D and A-Frame and see
> what use cases each cover and not cover.
>
> A-Frame appears to put each element in a box. The elements can only
> change in pre-defined manners and two elements cannot merge. X3D is
> far more flexible in this regard. I don't know how I would handle
> certain types of visualization or user-controlled on-the-fly geometry
> changes or arbitrary network updates in A-Frame.
>
>
> Leonard Daly
>
>
>
>>
>> On 4/11/17 12:57 PM, Andreas Plesch wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Leonard Daly <Leonard.Daly at realism.com
>>> <mailto:Leonard.Daly at realism.com>>
>>> To: x3d-public at web3d.org <mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>
>>> A-Frame's VR capability (as all of its rendering capability) is
>>> provided
>>> by Three.js. I know that Unreal has rather extensive VR (Rift, Vive)
>>> headset capability. I believe that Unity does too. Since the
>>> focus for
>>> this talk was on browser-based VR, I couldn't spend the time
>>> addressing
>>> VR capabilities of these platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> True, A-Frame only provides the declarative DOM layer, and three
>>> does all the rendering.
>>>
>>> Unity can export to webgl but I do not know if or how it supports webvr.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Did you get feedback after your presentation ? Anything you
>>> can share
>>> > would be interesting.
>>>
>>> Nothing significant. There was more in discussions with other
>>> attendees
>>> at the conference who did not see my presentation. I'll be
>>> posting that
>>> over the next month or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> ok. thanks.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The idea of combining of x3dom and A-Frame somehow is
>>> interesting. I
>>> > think it would boil down to implementing a new x3d browser on
>>> top of
>>> > A-Frame which may be quite possible. I experimented by
>>> reimplementing
>>> > IndexedFaceSet and ElevationGrid in A-Frame and think that
>>> geometry
>>> > and material nodes could be quite straightforward. Not sure about
>>> > everything else but probably possible with a lot of work. It also
>>> > would mean having a SAI on top of the DOM (as being manipulated by
>>> > A-Frame and custom event interfaces). Your presentation made a
>>> good
>>> > argument that there is a lot of value in having a wide set of
>>> > standardized capabilites.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think putting X3DOM on top of A-Frame is a bit like
>>> inverting a pyramid. A-Frame (as defined, not extended) is a rather
>>> limited-capability system. I think it would be much easier to put
>>> A-Frame on top of X3DOM -- except the part with A-Frame
>>> extensions. I
>>> think a better choice is to merge the two keeping the most important
>>> capabilities of both. I am formulating some ideas on that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, the idea of A-Frame is to be extensible with the hope that
>>> over time enough functionality emerges so it becomes truly easy to use.
>>>
>>> A-Frame takes care of parsing html (using html5 custom elements API
>>> I believe), helps with defining nodes, and provides rendering and
>>> interaction basics. To me it does sound like a good intermediate
>>> layer between three and x3d. And it exists. Of course, then all
>>> elements have to start with 'a-'.
>>>
>>> -Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> --
> *Leonard Daly*
> 3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20170413/35e9bf97/attachment.html>
More information about the x3d-public
mailing list