[x3d-public] Visualizing Math in X3D

[John Carlson]

Not trying to change the number of points yet. Thanks for the info.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:56 AM Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>    - What people don’t understand is I’m moving every vertex in the mesh
>
>
>
> Hey John, vrml and x3d hid that one in the hanim Displacer node.
>
> If you can’t do a morph you need with that, please tell. Just don’t try to
> change the number of points.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:55 AM
> *To: *X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> *Subject: *[x3d-public] Visualizing Math in X3D
>
>
>
> Don, I am just trying to make the standard better for visualizing
> mathematical stuff,   I pretty much majored in mathematical visualization
> in college.   There’s a lot of stuff in the standard for visualizing
> physics, both rigid body and particle systems.   Instead of applying math
> to physics, I am trying to apply physics to math.
>
>
>
> I realize that visualizing math does not really have a vocal champion in
> the X3D community, perhaps Andy Yeh is still around.
>
>
>
> I imagine because Mathematica made great strides in the math community.
>
>
>
> Mathematica still requires a Pro edition running on the cloud to even
> attempt my surfaces.   In X3D, they pop right up, even multiple
> “transparent” animated objects. Yay X3D!
>
>
>
> PlayCanvas has a *very* slow start up compared to X3D.
>
>
>
> I would like to continue using X3D over PlayCanvas and others.  The key
> remains don’t use the network for mesh, positions, or normals, generate
> them on the web client.   My knowledge of geometry shaders indicates I
> still need to compute a grid on a sphere, and the geometry shader can
> enhance that.
>
>
>
> That is why I am seeking to have the browser generate the mesh for at
> least one topology, let’s call it a sphere, but it’s the topology of the
> equation that matters.   I can already position and compute normals of the
> surfaces.  I could probably compute a mesh as sphere topology in an
> initialize method if that’s still allowed.  I am not sure about X_ITE.   I
> do not want to generate coordinates in X3D nodes.   Shaders are fine for
> that.   I am not sure I can confidently generate a mesh without defects.
>
>
>
> Low bandwidth (think 4G LTE) is preferred.
>
>
>
> But you can see my Frustration compared to Mathematica users who just type
> in a small set of equations.  Not my lucky day.
>
>
>
> I do not want geometry or perfect math in X3D.   I want a topological
> 0-hole enclosed surface, subdivided to adequate resolution.
>
>
>
> I will look further into primitive quality.
>
>
>
> I will see if my graphics card supports raytracing.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:37 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here’s the best looking version of what I like to do:
>
>
>
> https://playcanv.as/p/wQgQBgkE/
>
>
>
> Ideally, I could send a math equation in MathML by putting MathML into the
> geometry node, and PBR or material like glass or diamond
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:22 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Previous subject:  morphing comparison in X3D and glTF:
>
>
>
>
>
> http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/2017-December/008037.html
>
>
>
> I would say morphing is doable in X3DOM, but perhaps not other browsers.
> The most conformant approach would probably be an IFS where the position
> and normal are computed in a shader and the mesh is computed in user code,
> or provided statically.
>
>
>
> My question becomes,  Why can’t we provide at least provide for common
> topologies?  1 surface and 0 edges (sphere), 2 surface (cone), 3 surface
> (cylinder), 1 surface and one hole(torus), and consider a higher number of
> holes and surfaces.   I think we have a isocahedron at least...but very
> slow to open.
>
>
>
> It seems like I should be using blender to create X3D.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 12:33 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What people don’t understand is I’m moving every vertex in the mesh with
> respect to the mesh.   Kind of like particle physics or morphing would be a
> better description.   I have example videos.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 11:01 PM J. Scheurich <mufti11 at web.de> wrote:
>
>
> > 1.  User provides a mesh. I have done this before.  It is too slow for
> > a 100x100 IFS (20000 polygons I think).
> It depend on your graphics card and driver.
> For the rasberry PI and some other systems i meshured the performace in
> 3000 Polygon-Steps
> (1 NURBS-Object with uv/Tessellation 0)
>
> https://wdune.ourproject.org/docs/usage_docs/white_dune_rasberry_pi.odp
>
> (in german but page 5 is a readable table).
> A raspberry PI (shared Memory graphics card) can do 30000 polygons, a
> Intel HD 3000 shared
> memory graphics card (this is a common card on older "office"-laptops)
> can do 33000 polygons.
> There are very much faster graphic cards on "game laptops"....
> The fastest graphics card on this list is a very slow (processor)
> Mac-book....
>
> The only systems that are not able to do 20000 polygons are a 8 year old
> netbook and a
> ARM chromebook without a 3D driver.
>
> so long
> MUFTI
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200607/7dd03985/attachment.html>