[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[Vincent Marchetti]

Maxim

The question as to why a software application, particularly a commercial or closed product, chooses to support an exchange or export format is best answered by those who directly manage the development of those applications. I am sure it involves sales and business development objectives as much or more than direct technical merit. In the open source and third-party spheres X3D is widely supported. Direct X3D support by open source packages includes the two you mentioned (Blender, Meshlab), as well as by Open Cascade,VTK, and Cura 3D Printing software. There are also a variety of commercial and open source translation products that provide a route from the native formats of popular commercial products into X3D. There is a comprehensive list of applications at http://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/X3dResources.html#Conversions and the Web3D Consortium website at http://www.web3d.org has additional slide sets and presentations detailing workflows to create X3D content from common commercial and open source software.

Vince Marchetti
KShell Analysis & Web3D Consortium

> 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