<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Maybe not. It is a competition
with the current capabilities of the plugins for expressive content.
Consider that by smart culling of the current X3D node space, Vivaty can
express a scene at island size. BitManagement can do that and support
current content stock at both fidelity and speed.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>For engines, it’s about richness of smaller
locales over reach of larger ones. That’s a false dichotomy
in multi-engine systems united by common content application languages.
That’s why X3D is the right thing for Google to get behind.
It solves a lot of distribution and learning curve problems fast, neat, and
with no increase in IP overhead. Probably settles some debates at the O3D
shop too. I find when managing a small team, settling some of that by
fiat is an accelerant. When the bean counters look at project, having a
community of people out here willing to cheer for you helps too.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>len</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> x3d-public-bounces@web3d.org
[mailto:x3d-public-bounces@web3d.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On
Behalf Of </span></b>Ben Francis<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 29, 2009 5:37 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> X3D Graphics public mailing
list<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [X3D-Public] SPAM:
O3D presentation at Metaverse U Streaming</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks for the link Damon,<br>
<br>
I think I just heard Vangelis suggest that X3D could be built on top of O3D (or
Canvas3D or similar). Is that a good idea? It seems neater than having two
completely separate APIs for 3D in the browser, but possibly an inefficient way
of implementing X3D?<br>
<br>
</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>