[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[doug sanden]

Maxim,
https://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/3d/bodyprocessing.html
very interesting.
Q. do you have a list of technical requirements for body processing?
-Doug
..
I think there are questions going the other way .. such as will this body-processing be static -like a mannequine- or show the human in different poses and animating between poses, and the material cutting in / pinching their fat (which would cause fewer sales, and cause the body processing software to be not recommended/not mentioned by retailers, until it fixes the problem by making people look great in junk).
And cloth. I don't see a lot of cloth animation being done via x3d, just snippets, and even when animating cloth we are really animating mesh, for example with lerps (or slerps?) and that may not do cloth fitting justice, for example how stretchy is a cloth really. And it might not do humans justice either for example fat -which moves around a bit - vs muscle vs bone.
I guess what I'm thinking: should you start with a whole new process - start from the requirements, and work backward to what the format needs, and worry less about universality and standardization of the format - make your own little format if you need to and borrow subsets / ideas from other formats as needed?


'not .. wide .. acceptance .. besides Blender and MeshLab. Why is it so?' 
Some would challenge that. Lets accept that. There are a few reasons:
1. commerciality/economics - as there are plenty of free programs that work with open standard x3d, its hard for anyone to make monopoly profits, and hold large development teams, or swing deals with other monopoly packages. And there seems to be different market clumps: those who work free and like free tools, and those who work for a living as professionals, and like commercial tools which help escalate the value of their skills and block 'riff-raff' from taking their jobs for example a Blender enthusiast applying for a job as a professional animator, except sorry - no Maya experience and Maya costs $$$. So no way to 'move up'. Maya not supporting x3d may be a way to help the professional crowd hold their jobs and pay for their Maya licenses.
(however there have been export scripts developed by independents)
2. moving target format - vrml97 changed to x3d, and then that went 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 versions so for Maya to try and keep up with all that -with paid professional programming staff- is exhausting and expensive. The freeware programs like to tap into large audiences though, out of animal spirits to help millions, and make their own software popular,. So one way to do that is with inclusiveness: to build bridges to other freeware, for example importers/exporters for other formats


________________________________________
From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of Maxim Fedyukov <max at texel.graphics>
Sent: December 27, 2016 4:39 AM
To: x3d-public at web3d.org
Subject: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

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