[x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

[Maxim Fedyukov]

Hi John,

> Adding X3D export = $$$ or Yen or Euros or…. So, there was no great rush to add X3D into commercial systems.

Is it that hard?
If we at my company, for example, want to add binary (data size is critical for us) X3D export/import to our 3D scanning software, written in C++, what is the best current option for that?

Best regards,
Maxim Fedyukov, PhD
CEO, Texel Inc.
+7.910.403.27.01
max at texel.graphics


From: John Richardson [mailto:richards at spawar.navy.mil] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 10:07 PM
To: 'Maxim Fedyukov'; 'Vincent Marchetti'; 'X3D Graphics public mailing list'; 'doug sanden'
Subject: RE: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

Hello,

This happens because the problem domain is humanity.

VRML visualized simple humans and simple virtual environments.

VRML2 [VRML97] visualized more complex humans and virtual environments and interactions and had PROTOS [plus other stuff]. Geographic efforts and humanoid animation plus other specialty problem domain efforts bloomed. One of particular interest to your standards effort is H-Anim.

Since VRML was just “free”  inventor, there were existing codebases that could be licensed. Inventor is still going strong. The graphics community liked VRML. The simulation community liked inventor. Of course, the communities liked other things but we are talking about VRML/X3D.

So it was really easy for a lot of commercial systems to just add VRML and then VRML97 to the exporter modules in their commercial 3-D modeler systems. These exporters first appeared in the 1995 through 1999 timeframe. I may be off a little bit. So, you have a lot of commercial systems that export VRML97 and probably still do export VRML97. TurboCAD and Poser may be an example of adding VRML97 later. The commercial modelers are used for art. Film. Stuff like that.

Adding X3D export = $$$ or Yen or Euros or…. So, there was no great rush to add X3D into commercial systems. Also, a lot of 3-D printing technology hardware will use VRML97 and STL file formats. So hobbyists are happy with VRML97. That is why there are so many VRML97 to X3D convertors made by the Web3D community [plus the blender community] and not incorporated into commercial systems.

Now, as stated above the problem domain is humanity. That equals VRML97/X3D plus the Web3D working groups plus simulation technologies plus FORTRAN plus Labview [real time Internet of Things (IoT)] plus MAPLE/Mathematica/MATLAB plus a very expensive COMSOL Multiphysics plus Satellite Toolkit [spaceflight] plus…. I’ll talk about this in a future post.

Just to give some systems that export VRML97 and possibly X3D. Possibly X3D = exporter in application or there is a convertor for VRML97 exported from application. Also, note that the Web3D consortium has a list of commercial and open source systems that export VRML97 / X3D  and convertors that convert from VRML97 to X3D.

Note: If I list some system here that does not mean that it will export completely valid VRML97/X3D or can be converted with Web3D consortium tools. Also, the list is really just the systems that I have actually used that generated VRML97 files that would load into a VRML97 viewer.

Professional class Modeling and Animation for VR and AR: Maya, Blender, Lightwave 3D, Poser [specialty is h-anim].
Professional Class Architecture for VR and AR: Punch Home Design Studio, Form-Z and TurboCAD.
Scientific computation for VR and AR: MATLAB [Simulink 3D], Mathematica [and system modeler], Maple and Labview [tests with Labview indicate substandard “easy” VRML97 import/export and interaction between the IoT and VR – extremely advanced custom coding needed].

Consult the Web3D consortium listing for all the professional class  systems I missed. Examples would be Houdini, Rhino, 3D Studio Max, maybe AutoCAD, Strata Design 3D [VRML97 in/out but I have not used it]…. For Architecture, ArchiCAD [Graphisoft application with VRML97 export according to their website but I have not used it] and possibly Solidworks [I have not used] and Pro-Engineer[ I have not used]. Also consult the Web3D consortium site for lists of VRML97/X3D editor systems [import file formats and can add behaviors (deterministic simulations) and then pop out VRML97 or X3D files that can be loaded into a VR viewer.

This is all about 3-D fashion reconstruction. I also suspect it is also about wearable computers. Essentially, how does industry standardize in a way to make money. This suspicion is all speculation of course. I was just answering your puzzle briefly but will give some more information in a separate post.

John


From: x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of Maxim Fedyukov
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 6:52 AM
To: Vincent Marchetti; X3D Graphics public mailing list; doug sanden
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Current X3D adoption

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