[x3d-public] Mozilla A-frame impressions

Mon Jan 11 12:24:30 PST 2016

I was not aware of A-frame and so it was interesting to look at A-frame (
http://aframe.io) to get a sense of what hard core web developers have in
mind and can accomplish when they work as a large team for half a year (or
so, perhaps longer) on an easy to use, declarative interface to webgl/vr
which is compatible with current web technologies (DOM, web components). My
first impression is that although a useful feature set was developed it
does feel sort of basic and constrained, confirming that it is (very)
difficult to accomplish such a feat.
I looked at the docs and examples with an eye on if it would be possible to
implement a x3d browser using aframe (which is based on three.js, I
believe).
While the examples are quite basic, it looks like a lot of time has been
spend on architecture and composability which seem well thought out.
New Entities (html elements) can be defined based on existing Components.
New Components (html attributes) can only be defined using javascript (?)
and the API. Templates name and parametrize grouped entities and can be
reused. Assets are higher order bundles (not sure how they can be used,
perhaps like inline).
I could not immediately find examples which use custom components and other
types of reuse or bundling.
I noticed that transforms are separated into individual position, scale,
rotation "nodes" (here attributes) which vrml 1.0 used to have before they
were combined in vrml 2.0. So some history repeating itself may be
happening.
Although not explicitly explained there is a local coordinate system within
templates (a grouping node which can have transforms).
It is a bit strange that they do not acknowledge vrml or x3d as a first
order inspiration (perhaps via GLAM). The faq mentions vrml and how aframe
is different but only points to the slowness of the standards process
compared to the fast moving web rather than to specifics. ( I am tempted to
file a polite issue on github in this regard. )
It is very interesting that aframe chose a physics based shader material as
the default shader using properties such as roughness or metallicity.
Perhaps this could be adopted since their model is completely defined and
coded ?
There does not seem to be a way to use custom shaders.
There is only a single camera (viewpoint) although multiple, switchable
cameras are in development.
It can natively import three.js supported 3d formats (.dae, .stl) into
scene, a major plus in my view.
So looking at this, it does appear that x3d and x3dom/cobweb may just need
wider exposure (and bug fixes), and a vr mode (FHG has a prototype but it
would need to be a seamless option), and they may be quite competitive. Of
course, it is hard to do without a backer like Mozilla or Intel.
Having a well written, battle-tested and archival-grade spec. remains a
very valuable x3d asset in the mean time.
On the whole, I feel A-frame will need some more time to mature and become
more widely adopted and I am unsure if it can replace custom webgl/three.js
or unity/unreal-for-the-web experiences. For other, perhaps more basic
needs x3d/x3dom still looks pretty competitive.
-Andreas

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:30 AM, <x3d-public-request at web3d.org> wrote:

> Send x3d-public mailing list submissions to
>         x3d-public at web3d.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         x3d-public-request at web3d.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         x3d-public-owner at web3d.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of x3d-public digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Call to Progress on X3D V4 (David Murphy)
>    2. Re: Call to Progress on X3D V4 (doug sanden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:35:12 +0000
> From: David Murphy <d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
> To: Leonard Daly <web3d at realism.com>
> Cc: "x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net"
>         <x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net>,    X3D Graphics public
> mailing list
>         <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
> Message-ID: <D1ACDCC2-9407-4D0F-B3CF-B0700108FF52 at cs.ucc.ie>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> hi Leonard,
>
> I completely understand your frustration with the situation.
> Looking at things objectively I believe that the recent phenomenal
> interest in VR has taken the community by surprise. The X3D/VRML community
> has been comfortable operating at a particular pace, however circumstances
> are overtaking us.
>
> I was preparing the first lecture of my Semester 2 VR class over the
> weekend, and was taken aback by the sheer number of startup (or should it
> be upstart) attempts at developing a ?VR? language/platform (proprietary or
> open).
>
> This ?new? VR industry is either unaware of X3D or has chosen to bypass,
> for whatever reason, the standard.
> If this isn?t addressed soon X3D may become irrelevant, which none of us
> want to see.
>
> I think one of the fundamental challenges facing the X3D WG and community
> of users and developers, is simply the lack of awareness of the standard in
> the VR industry.
>
> I?m not a member of the WG, however as a member of the X3D community I
> genuinely appreciate the efforts of the WG, and so I will do whatever I can
> to promote/champion X3D.
>
> cheers
> rgds Dave
> __________________________
> David Murphy
>
> Department of Computer Science
> Room 1.77
> Western Gateway Building
> University College Cork
> Ireland
>
>
> e: d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie
> map: http://bit.ly/WGB_UCC
> w: http://multimedia.ucc.ie
> w: http://www.imclab.ucc.ie
> w: http://www.cs.ucc.ie/staff/dmurphy.html
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Jan 2016, at 06:04, Leonard Daly <web3d at realism.com> wrote:
> >
> > Last week I sent a message to the X3D WG about my concerns on lack of
> progress for developing a V4 specification. This message is expanding the
> reach of the original message and providing additional requested material,
> specifically examples of situations where I would want and/or expect X3D to
> run in a browser. The list of examples is being expanded as developments
> occur.
> >
> > The marketplace is making significant progress in commercialization of
> virtual and augmented reality. There is no standard format for expressing
> 3D content. The marketplace will choose at least one format and it will not
> likely be X3D.  Already there are alternative markup languages emerging
> that attempt to do what X3D has been doing for decades: create an HTML like
> language for 3D graphics.  GLAM is an example proposed by Tony Parisi, and
> most recently Mozilla?s A-frame, released 3 weeks ago, both attempting to
> speak in the language of web developers to bring VR/AR to the browser.
> >
> > I am very frustrated in the lack of progress of the Working Group in
> developing a specification for X3D V4. There are number of issues that have
> been raised about the fundamentals of designs of X3D that appear to be
> incompatible with an HTML/DOM environment. A partial list includes the
> following:
> > * name-scope handling
> > * scripting
> > * interfaces to the nodes and fields through the DOM API
> > * event handling
> > * profile structure and contents
> > * newly supported formats (geometry and media)
> >
> > Examples of X3D/X3DOM: http://tools.realism.com/x3d-v4-issue-examples
> > There are other concerns about event model that are not expressed in
> these examples mostly due to being unable to create an example that clearly
> shows the problem. It does exists and you may see some of that in sporadic
> or jerky movement in the animation examples using X3DOM.
> >
> > I have a concept specification that is getting updated at
> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40. The was first sent to the
> X3D WG in November and has had a couple of other discussions.
> >
> > My specific technical concerns with the specification are listed in the
> Author's Notes at
> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40/authors-notes
> >
> > Most importantly, it is not clear to me who the WG believes is the
> target audience for the specification and how the specification will meet
> that audience?s needs.
> >
> > As Co-Chair on Sabbatical and current member of the WG, I need to take
> some responsibility for not getting there. I have been working on
> developing a new specification and the beginning of an open-source
> web-based application for building scenes in the new specification. The web
> application is called ?Basx3D - 3D the HTML Way?. I have posted an article
> about it?s initial release - http://realism.com/blog/basx3d. This post
> and one describing the X3D V4 proposal are publicly available.
> >
> > The application is targeted at web developers who do not need to know
> the details of creating an X3D by hand. The concept was based on Unreal
> Engine and Unity editors. I will be continuing development of both the
> application and proposal on a frequent and regular basis. Basx3D and the
> proposed specification function as a two-way development effort with Basx3D
> reflecting the proposal and providing implementation information and
> experience back to the specification.
> >
> > Although outside of its scope, the WG must be aware of the audience to
> which the standard is written, and the audience to which the standard is
> being promoted.  This concept is crucial to the future adoption of X3D and
> should ultimately be agreed upon by the BOD, but the WG needs to understand
> and follow this strategy which will ultimately influence prioritization of
> WG activity.
> >
> > I am firmly committed to an open, royalty free, ISO ratified standard
> that communicates 3D data and its behaviors over networks, especially the
> dominant global network which is the internet, and which universally
> supports HTML5.  I don?t want to see the decades of work and passion that
> have been invested in the standards maintained and promoted by the Web3D
> Consortium relegated to the corridors of obscurity.  Because of many trends
> in software and hardware, a nexus of opportunity has been created like
> never before of which we can take advantage to catapult the Consortium?s
> standards to significant global adoption.  Let?s not miss this chance!
> >
> >
> > Leonard Daly
> > Basx3D and X3D V4 Specification Proposal Author
> >
> >
> > In Full Support
> > Mike Aratow
> > Treasurer, Web3D Consortium
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Leonard Daly*
> > X3D Co-Chair
> > Cloud Consultant
> > President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160111/72b454ce/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:30:53 +0000
> From: doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com>
> To: X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CY1PR14MB056788484C1967FD24903E3EB6C90 at CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> >From my perspective^, V4 has had to 'burn the candle from both ends' -
> discover what's possible/doable/practical in html/webgl while moving x3d in
> that direction. So being too quick/early with a V4 may be sub-optimal.
> Maybe V4 is the wrong name. For this stage of the game.
> What might help is starting a new series of standards from 1.0 ie webx3dA
> 1.0, webx3dB 1.0 with A being the X3Dom style and B being the cobweb style.
> That would allow for a C, D or anything else that comes a long. Then
> if/when the world chooses a winner, when the dust settles a bit more,
> rename it.
> In other words, I think you could/should be capturing things as they
> mature naturally, rather than steering/forcing the whole process. Relax a
> bit.
> -Doug
> ^about me:
> I'm a self-declared pseudo expert in VR: I follow in others footsteps and
> try and catch on.
> * I've worked in spaghetti C native code in project freeWRL for 6 years
> * taught game programming course in DX/C++ 6 week
> * animated an industrial simulator in .wrl for a year
> * modeled a historical townsite project in blender, exported to x3d for
> flux and kml for googleEarth  and ported x3d to x3dom and cobweb :
> https://sites.google.com/site/airdriehistoricaltour/
> And currently working toward accommodating HMD emulators and desktop
> configurations in freewrl (still native/C code, V3.3).
> Before that, 2 decades of photogrammetric systems engineering and stereo
> machine vision algorithms.
> Airdrie Historical Virtual Tour<
> https://sites.google.com/site/airdriehistoricaltour/>
> sites.google.com
> Airdrie Historical Virtual Tour - 3D rendering in googleEarth, virtual
> reality and webgl of early Airdrie,AB townsite, with photos placed
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of David Murphy
> <d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
> Sent: January 11, 2016 5:35 AM
> To: Leonard Daly
> Cc: x3dom-users at lists.sourceforge.net; X3D Graphics public mailing list
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
>
> hi Leonard,
>
> I completely understand your frustration with the situation.
> Looking at things objectively I believe that the recent phenomenal
> interest in VR has taken the community by surprise. The X3D/VRML community
> has been comfortable operating at a particular pace, however circumstances
> are overtaking us.
>
> I was preparing the first lecture of my Semester 2 VR class over the
> weekend, and was taken aback by the sheer number of startup (or should it
> be upstart) attempts at developing a ?VR? language/platform (proprietary or
> open).
>
> This ?new? VR industry is either unaware of X3D or has chosen to bypass,
> for whatever reason, the standard.
> If this isn?t addressed soon X3D may become irrelevant, which none of us
> want to see.
>
> I think one of the fundamental challenges facing the X3D WG and community
> of users and developers, is simply the lack of awareness of the standard in
> the VR industry.
>
> I?m not a member of the WG, however as a member of the X3D community I
> genuinely appreciate the efforts of the WG, and so I will do whatever I can
> to promote/champion X3D.
>
> cheers
> rgds Dave
> __________________________
> David Murphy
>
> Department of Computer Science
> Room 1.77
> Western Gateway Building
> University College Cork
> Ireland
>
>
> e: d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie<mailto:d.murphy at cs.ucc.ie>
> map: http://bit.ly/WGB_UCC
> w: http://multimedia.ucc.ie
> w: http://www.imclab.ucc.ie
> w: http://www.cs.ucc.ie/staff/dmurphy.html
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 06:04, Leonard Daly <web3d at realism.com<mailto:
> web3d at realism.com>> wrote:
>
> Last week I sent a message to the X3D WG about my concerns on lack of
> progress for developing a V4 specification. This message is expanding the
> reach of the original message and providing additional requested material,
> specifically examples of situations where I would want and/or expect X3D to
> run in a browser. The list of examples is being expanded as developments
> occur.
>
> The marketplace is making significant progress in commercialization of
> virtual and augmented reality. There is no standard format for expressing
> 3D content. The marketplace will choose at least one format and it will not
> likely be X3D.  Already there are alternative markup languages emerging
> that attempt to do what X3D has been doing for decades: create an HTML like
> language for 3D graphics.  GLAM is an example proposed by Tony Parisi, and
> most recently Mozilla?s A-frame, released 3 weeks ago, both attempting to
> speak in the language of web developers to bring VR/AR to the browser.
>
> I am very frustrated in the lack of progress of the Working Group in
> developing a specification for X3D V4. There are number of issues that have
> been raised about the fundamentals of designs of X3D that appear to be
> incompatible with an HTML/DOM environment. A partial list includes the
> following:
> * name-scope handling
> * scripting
> * interfaces to the nodes and fields through the DOM API
> * event handling
> * profile structure and contents
> * newly supported formats (geometry and media)
>
> Examples of X3D/X3DOM: http://tools.realism.com/x3d-v4-issue-examples
> There are other concerns about event model that are not expressed in these
> examples mostly due to being unable to create an example that clearly shows
> the problem. It does exists and you may see some of that in sporadic or
> jerky movement in the animation examples using X3DOM.
>
> I have a concept specification that is getting updated at
> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40. The was first sent to the
> X3D WG in November and has had a couple of other discussions.
>
> My specific technical concerns with the specification are listed in the
> Author's Notes at
> http://tools.realism.com/specification/x3d-v40/authors-notes
>
> Most importantly, it is not clear to me who the WG believes is the target
> audience for the specification and how the specification will meet that
> audience?s needs.
>
> As Co-Chair on Sabbatical and current member of the WG, I need to take
> some responsibility for not getting there. I have been working on
> developing a new specification and the beginning of an open-source
> web-based application for building scenes in the new specification. The web
> application is called ?Basx3D - 3D the HTML Way?. I have posted an article
> about it?s initial release - http://realism.com/blog/basx3d. This post
> and one describing the X3D V4 proposal are publicly available.
>
> The application is targeted at web developers who do not need to know the
> details of creating an X3D by hand. The concept was based on Unreal Engine
> and Unity editors. I will be continuing development of both the application
> and proposal on a frequent and regular basis. Basx3D and the proposed
> specification function as a two-way development effort with Basx3D
> reflecting the proposal and providing implementation information and
> experience back to the specification.
>
> Although outside of its scope, the WG must be aware of the audience to
> which the standard is written, and the audience to which the standard is
> being promoted.  This concept is crucial to the future adoption of X3D and
> should ultimately be agreed upon by the BOD, but the WG needs to understand
> and follow this strategy which will ultimately influence prioritization of
> WG activity.
>
> I am firmly committed to an open, royalty free, ISO ratified standard that
> communicates 3D data and its behaviors over networks, especially the
> dominant global network which is the internet, and which universally
> supports HTML5.  I don?t want to see the decades of work and passion that
> have been invested in the standards maintained and promoted by the Web3D
> Consortium relegated to the corridors of obscurity.  Because of many trends
> in software and hardware, a nexus of opportunity has been created like
> never before of which we can take advantage to catapult the Consortium?s
> standards to significant global adoption.  Let?s not miss this chance!
>
>
> Leonard Daly
> Basx3D and X3D V4 Specification Proposal Author
>
>
> In Full Support
> Mike Aratow
> Treasurer, Web3D Consortium
>
>
> --
> *Leonard Daly*
> X3D Co-Chair
> Cloud Consultant
> President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org<mailto: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/20160111/e32b5540/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of x3d-public Digest, Vol 82, Issue 14
> ******************************************
>

-- 
Andreas Plesch
39 Barbara Rd.
Waltham, MA 02453
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160111/9d24cf40/attachment-0001.html>