[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

Thu Dec 29 12:46:58 PST 2016

Thanks for the continuing dialog and scrutiny Maxim.

Currently there is some significant revision work underway on the H-Anim standard.  A recent ISO vote by national bodies, and subsequent editors review meetings, have improved committee drafts for current H-Anim standard (now referred to as Part 1) and added a new H-Anim part 2 for motion capture (mocap).  A future part 3 for facial animation is also under consideration with initial design work available.  Functional improvements and document drafts are performed by Web3D's Humanoid Animation (H-Anim) Working Group.

	Humanoid Animation (H-Anim) Working Group
	http://www.web3d.org/working-groups/humanoid-animation-h-anim

The primary focus of H-Anim mocap has been full support for BVH, a widely used convention for such files.  As we perfect that alignment and update the H-Anim ISO committee drafts, we expect that further export/translation to/from FBX and Collada is likely to occur.  We will further be sensitive to considering any additional common features that can be compatibly standardized without conflict, either through best-practice adaptation or (when necessary) specification.  As mentioned by Vince, a significant degree of conversion support is available already.

	X3D Resources: Conversions and Translation Tools
	http://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/X3dResources.html#Conversions

Additional effort is being applied to normalization of medical naming and annotations for scans recording human skeleton, skin and motion.  The goal has been set to achieve the level of rigor required to support electronic medical records.  Further synergies in both modeling and metadata have been noted in related X3D work on 3D printing and 3D scanning.  Our Medical and CAD working groups handle those respective domains.

	Medical Working Group
	http://www.web3d.org/working-groups/medical

	Computer Aided Design (CAD) Working Group
	http://www.web3d.org/working-groups/computer-aided-design-cad

H-Anim progress will be a major topic of the annual Web3D Korea Chapter meeting in Seoul in a few weeks, 16-19 January 2017.  You can expect reports and presentations afterwards on our mailing lists.  Perhaps there is even a participant in the  IEEE 3D Body Processing Working Group who might joint us for a session?

	Web3D Korea Chapter
	http://www.web3d.org/about/chapters
	http://www.web3d.kr

Of note is that many people think the largest markets can occur when archival stability is achieved.  Thus X3D pays close attention to related formats, but places the highest premium on correctness and completeness that can stand the test of time.  This illustrates why VRML (a well-supported strict subset of X3D) remains effective today, and also why the Web3D Consortium Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy places such emphasis on remaining royalty free for any use.

	Web3D Consortium Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy
	http://www.web3d.org/sites/default/files/page/Join%20the%20Web3D%20Consortium/Web3D_IPR.pdf

Thus much important work continues.  Presumably this holds interest for both your IEEE working group and your company's work; both look impressive and important.

Might we invite you to attend an X3D Working Group teleconference in the New Year?  Roy Walmsley (cc:ed) is cochair and plans out the schedule.  Our regular weekly time is Wednesday 08-0930 Pacific but other arrangements are certainly possible too.

It will be great to continue learning more about IEEE efforts and how we might communicate/coordinate/cooperate/collaborate together.  Such efforts can be informal or more organized - we have many formal liaison relationships already.

	Web3D Liaisons and Partnerships
	http://www.web3d.org/about/liaisons

Looking forward to improved awareness and perhaps even mutual progress, there is much important work to pursue.  Thank goodness we have an imminent New Year to pursue it all!  Again thanks, good luck with your efforts.

sincerely, Don

On 12/29/2016 11:28 AM, Maxim Fedyukov wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>> X3D HAnim captures industry basic best-practice concepts and techniques of skeletal animation, seamless skin mesh, deformable mesh animation, standardized names and locatons of consistent external and internal landmarks for metrics and interaction, and a standardized way of providing interfaces for transportable animation routines. These are the typical standard capabilities found in all character authoring tools. You will find that all character authoring tools use these same techniques and essentially the same data. These provide a basis for a wide range of applications. The X3D HAnim working group is focused on adding new capabilities to the model.
>
> Yes, I took a quick look at HAnim, and it looks like a good alternative to having animated avatars in FBX or Collada.
> What is the position of HAnim regarding these two formats?
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
> CEO, Texel Inc.
> +7.910.403.27.01
> max at texel.graphics
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe D Williams [mailto:joedwil at earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:24 PM
> To: Maxim Fedyukov
> Cc: X3D Graphics public mailing list
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> I certainly agree with Alan's comment. I think we find the XML and VRML forms are easy to read and to import.
>
>> Exploring the formats to include into standard recommendations, I see
>> that X3D seems to be one of the best candidates.
>
> X3D HAnim captures industry basic best-practice concepts and techniques of skeletal animation, seamless skin mesh, deformable mesh animation, standardized names and locatons of consistent external and internal landmarks for metrics and interaction, and a standardized way of providing interfaces for transportable animation routines. These are the typical standard capabilities found in all character authoring tools. You will find that all character authoring tools use these same techniques and essentially the same data. These provide a basis for a wide range of applications. The X3D HAnim working group is focused on adding new capabilities to the model.
>
> You are invited to join a weekly or monthly phone meeting to discuss your humanoid applications and help to add or refine features to cover your applications.
>
>> But the main concern here is
>> that X3D has not received a wide acceptance of notable software
>> applications
>
> Look under the covers and you will see that names may be slightly different but all character modelling applications from Bitmanagement to Autodesk to Blender to Unity to meshlab and mathlab or whatever use the same "biped" data in the same way as defined in X3D HAnim. The HAnim component is integrated with the rest of X3D and provides the means to capture and maintain the documentation for all character construction, interaction, and animation data in a single extensible file using a standardized human-readable format.
>
>> I'm writing you as the file format subteam lead of IEEE 3D Body
>> Processing working group
>
> I'm replying as an invited expert in the HAnim Working group now inviting you to look deeper into the HAnim ISO standard and some examples to see our coverage. Likewise we would be very interested in your discoveries and opinions.
>
> In addition, web3D.org includes an active X3D working group discussing standards for 3D printing.
>
> Thank You and Best Regards,
> Joe
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Hudson" <alan at shapeways.com>
> To: "Maxim Fedyukov" <max at texel.graphics>
> Cc: "X3D Graphics public mailing list" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 6:57 AM
> 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 <+7%20910%20403-27-01>
>>>> max at texel.graphics

all the best, Don
-- 
Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br       brutzman at nps.edu
Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149
X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman