[x3d-public] Fwd: thinking about X3DJSONLD/X3DOM/glTF interoperability

John Carlson yottzumm at gmail.com
Sat Jul 8 08:48:39 PDT 2017


I am considering converting glTF to X3DJSON, if people think this is
appropriate and in demand.

On Jul 8, 2017 11:40 AM, "Don Brutzman" <brutzman at nps.edu> wrote:

> On 7/5/2017 11:21 PM, John Carlson wrote:
>
>> Now that I think about it, it makes sense to use glTF as model for
>> composability. Hmm.
>>
>
> On 7/7/2017 9:24 PM, Andreas Plesch wrote:
>
>>
>>     One could probably include a textured big box or sphere as background
>> in glTF file. Fog may be possible with a custom shader. After all, glTF by
>> itself requires definition of shaders. Only the glTF extensions provide
>> predefined shaders for standard (KHR,PBR) materials.
>> It turns out that this is now reversed with gltf2. Core gltf2 has
>> standard materials, and custom shaders were relegated to an extension.
>>
>
> Johannes Behr reported at Web3D 2017 Conference last month that efforts to
> integrate SRC capabilities in glTF are complete.  This coincided with the
> release announcement of glTF 2 and physically based rendering capabilities.
>
> Not included in this SRC integration is progressive-mesh streaming.
> Johannes further indicated that their algorithms in that domain continue to
> change frequently, so stabilization on standardized approaches to mesh
> streaming might not be advisable at this time.
>
> Here is the glTF 2.0 announcement from Web3D 2017:
> ==================================================
> Khronos Releases glTF 2.0 Specification
> Runtime 3D Asset Delivery Format Enhanced with Platform Independent
> Physically Based Rendering
> June 5, 2017 – 6:00 AM Pacific Time -- Brisbane, Australia
> https://www.khronos.org/news/press/khronos-releases-gltf-2.0-specification
>
> "The Khronos™ Group, an open consortium of leading hardware and software
> companies, announces from the Web3D 2017 Conference the immediate
> availability of the finalized glTF 2.0 specification incorporating industry
> feedback received from developers through the provisional specification
> that was made available for review on GitHub.
>
> The release of glTF 2.0 delivers a significant upgrade to glTF 1.0, an
> extensible, runtime neutral, open standard format for real-time delivery of
> 3D assets, which describes full scenes with compact transmission and fast
> load time. In response to major functionality requests from the developer
> community using glTF 1.0, the release of glTF 2.0 adds Physically Based
> Rendering (PBR) for portable, consistent description of materials. In glTF
> 1.0, a material was defined with a GLSL shader, which suited WebGL, but was
> problematic when importing a glTF model into a Direct3D or Metal
> application. Through using PBR, visually arresting glTF 2.0 models are now
> consistently portable to any rendering API. A PBR material is defined by a
> few concise parameters that can be used to generate shaders for any
> rendering API. glTF 2.0 defines a simple to implement, but powerful, PBR
> model that provides high-quality materials, and yet, is scalable to suit
> the capabilities of different classes of platform and device." [...]
> ==================================================
>
> We plan to devote an X3D Working Group meeting to examine how all this
> great progress modifies our standardization advancement efforts, both for
> compression and for rendering.
>
>         X3D Compressed Binary Encoding Activity
>         http://www.web3d.org/working-groups/x3d/compressed-binary-en
> coding-activity
>
> Including advanced physically based rendering (PBR) materials has been on
> our X3Dv4 feature list since last summer when Timo Sturm showed such
> dramatic demos at Web3D and SIGGRAPH conferences.
>
>         X3D Version 4.0 Development: Candidate Capabilities
>         http://www.web3d.org/wiki/index.php/X3D_version_4.0_Developm
> ent#Candidate_Capabilities
>
>         Materials: advanced parameters
>         HDR: Improvements in both materials and rendering for high
> definition rendering technological advances.
>
> Another intriguing development: should X3D Inline node (url field) accept
> glTF models, in addition to X3D and VRML?
>
> Related consideration: is there impact/influence on X3D Shader
> improvements that Michalis Kamburelis has proposed and demonstrated?
>
> Lots to consider.  SIGGRAPH sessions will no doubt reveal even more about
> how we can align these mature capabilities effectively in X3Dv4.
>
> Onward we go.  Continuing insights and progress are welcome!
>
> 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/brutzma
> n
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20170708/f3b332f8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the x3d-public mailing list