[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[Maxim Fedyukov]

Hi Alan,

 

> I have a theory on format adoption.  What i've seen over the years is that simple formats rule.  One might even say dead formats rule as they don't change.  I suspect there is a threshold of effort that turns supporting a format from a simple project to one that must be approved.  My going theory is that any format you can implement in < 1 week just get's done.  Above that it must be approved and that starts a larger discussion.

 

Yes, that is definitely a good point.

 

> If you choose to spec X3D for your project I'd recommend being very focused in your usage.  Spec a simple set of components, require one encoding, then write a document that brings all the information into one place to help adopters.

 

OK, well noted, thank you, written down to the doc.

 

Best regards,

Maxim Fedyukov, PhD

CEO, Texel Inc.

+7.910.403.27.01

max at texel.graphics

 

 

From: Alan Hudson [mailto:alan at shapeways.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 5:57 PM

To: Maxim Fedyukov

Cc: Vincent Marchetti; X3D Graphics public mailing list; doug sanden

Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

 

I have a theory on format adoption.  What i've seen over the years is that simple formats rule.  One might even say dead formats rule as they don't change.  I suspect there is a threshold of effort that turns supporting a format from a simple project to one that must be approved.  My going theory is that any format you can implement in < 1 week just get's done.  Above that it must be approved and that starts a larger discussion.  

 

I was never very successful in convincing everyone to keep X3D simple and am certainly to blame for some of its bloat.  If you choose to spec X3D for your project I'd recommend being very focused in your usage.  Spec a simple set of components, require one encoding, then write a document that brings all the information into one place to help adopters.  

 

 

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Maxim Fedyukov <max at texel.graphics> wrote:

Vincent, Doug, thank you for your opinions and comments.

 

> 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

 

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

 

_______________________________________________

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/20161229/4fb01a82/attachment.html>