[x3d-public] Visualizing Math in X3D
Joseph D Williams
joedwil at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 8 13:50:03 PDT 2020
➢ Limited to [0,1]? I’ll check the docs.
Yes, that is the scale input. From the initial position, theDisplacer moves the specified vertex according to the 100 percent displacement set in the values.
Joe
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: John Carlson
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 1:14 PM
To: Joseph D Williams
Cc: X3D Graphics public mailing list
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Visualizing Math in X3D
Limited to [0,1]? I’ll check the docs.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:10 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
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
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 12:55 AM
To: X3D Graphics public mailing list
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/20200608/2a0dd848/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the x3d-public
mailing list