[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[Maxim Fedyukov]

Vincent, Doug, thank you for your opinions and comments.
> Maxim,> https://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/3d/bodyprocessing.htmlvery interesting.
> Q. do you have a list of technical requirements for body processing?
> -Doug
The current stage is exactly the formation of a list of technical requirements for 3D body processing. So I'm gathering the proposition with every option, current pros and contras and the future projections, as the first standard publishing is planned for Q4 2017.
What puzzles me even more is the widespread adoption of VRML, even in quite new software, which appeared much later than 2005, but still they have chosen to aim their efforts at adding the support for VRML and/or VRML2, but not X3D. Do you have an understanding or opinion why this happens?
Best regards,
Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
CEO, Texel Inc.
+7.910.403.27.01
max at texel.graphics

-------- Original message --------From: Vincent Marchetti <vmarchetti at kshell.com> Date: 12/27/16  16:34  (GMT+03:00) To: Maxim Fedyukov <max at texel.graphics>, X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20161228/320c13c1/attachment.html>