Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

One 3D Format to Rule Them All 232

Posted by timothy from the remember-that-intel-sells-chips dept.
prostoalex writes "Three-dimensional graphics for the Web always seemed like a great concept that's not there yet. Five years ago many publications saw a great future in 3D-Web, but somehow things just haven't been moving in that direction. Apparently, the status quo is not making companies in this field happy and so the big guys, including Intel, Macromedia, AutoDesk, EDS et al. formed a 3D CAD working group. They claim that 'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the Web, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.' The article is published in the latest issue of Intel Developer Update magazine, which is also available as a PDF."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

One 3D Format to Rule Them All More

One 3D Format to Rule Them All

Comments Filter:

  • Great. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekd ( 14774 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:55PM (#4065002) Homepage
    Great. As if Flash isn't bad enough, now everybody's going to have a huge 3D intro to thier web site.

    Note to web designers:

    Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

    I can see how this would be sweet for colaborative development in the CAD field, but you know people are going to screw up thier web pages with it.

    I like text only web pages. Is that so wrong?

    • Look on the bright side ... ... 3D pr0n.

      YAWIAR.

    • Re:Great. (Score:5, Funny)

      by GoatEnigma ( 586728 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:11PM (#4065121) Homepage
      <BLINK 3D>
      HI! This is my GEOCITIES WEB SIGHT!
      ..
      ..
      </BLINK 3D>

      you know it's going to happen...

    • Re:Great. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sahala ( 105682 )
      Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

      ...

      I like text only web pages. Is that so wrong?

      Just because you don't see a useful application, doesn't mean that no one else will.

      I'm not saying that 3D is the next big thing. Far from it. In fact to a large extent I agree with your latter comment (text only web pages). I would even argue that the technical community can barely come up with decent 3D applications outside of a web browser, let alone in a web browser. Even a lot of games out don't really need 3D for decent playability...it's more for effect and keeping up with the times.

      But I do think that having some standard for it would be beneficial, if only to give people more tools to do more interesting things. I can think of a few applications I have worked on that might have benefited from a 3D standard for data visualization. Uses were very limited to a few instances, but it would have helped. I don't worry too much about people overdoing it on web pages because as others have noted, a web page chock-full of unecessary crap will eventually have less visits. Web developers will learn their lesson one way or another, whether the hard or easy way.

    • I, very much agree with your comments. But, you don't have to restrict the designers to text only.

      The fact is, most web pages can have very nice designs, including graphics and such without the use of Flash or 3D whatever. The catch is to keep the page sizes small.

      I feel that web designers should be forced to access and manipulate their pages via a 14.4 connection. This will make page bloat and poor design obvious and miserable, even to the designers.

      But, this is not the case. They design on highend systems with fat pipes. They use tools that add superfluous bloat and make adding extra goodies so easy that they can't resist. Most designers are all too eager to throw in the latest useless "applets" or widgets to try to distinguish themselves and their sites. It's inconvenient for them to work through slow connections and apparently too hard(or are they lazy) to manually strip out the bloat. This results in massive page bloat for pages that provide little or no content. Frankly, many of them also just look awful but, I suppose they could argue that this is subjective.

      My point is that contrary to the status quo, 99% of the pages that are on the web, would be far better if the designers would just KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

    • Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should

      Oh, that's fine. Next, you're going to tell me I have to take my cloned dinosaurs off my website, too!

    • Great. As if Flash isn't bad enough, now everybody's going to have a huge 3D intro to thier web site.

      "Mom! Help! I've been poked in the eye by a 3D pop-up ad. I'm bleeding!"


    • The thing is, if the applications are limited only to the web, the problem is still manageable.

      But we are talking about 3D, where the are TONS and TONS of DIFFERENT USES.

      One-size-fits-all approach isn't really going to work in this case.

    • Depending on the format it's coded in though, it doesn't have to be huge. Something like VRML can be zipped on the server, and unzipped client-side by the browser, so transmission's pretty fast. I find flash intros annoying, but if they have a "skip" button, I can deal with it.

      I like text only web pages. Is that so wrong?

      Nope. But you're outnumbered.

    • I've always thought that, with a few exceptions, all this heavyweight 'content' represents a complete mismatch between the medium and user intent. The reason I like the web is because it can facilitate fast access to information. But it's not good if you have to wade through a layer of graphic bloat. In some ways, Flash (used inappropriately, as if often is) is to the Web as Micro$oft is to software.

      Go ahead, "designers" - load up your pages with a bunch of useless visual crap. See how often I visit the site.
  • where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.

    Until they get 3D pr0n, the volume of anything but pr0n on the web will remain well under 1%.

  • Who needs a 3d web? - Are newspapers in 3D? No. hmm, what else is the web good for than news and information,,.. do we have 3d-porn-television? No! maybe 3D-Games? Yes, but not in a webbrowser =)

  • 3D web. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:56PM (#4065018)
    maybe it is b/c the web is 2D but I really don't see a need for 3D web. I use the web to read news, do research, find jobs, and look at porn. Yeah, I suppose 3D porn would be nice but not really necessary.

    Research materials in 3D, hmm, it still would not be the same as holding reference material from 1863 in an archive.

    News in 3D? Not really necessary, shit on TV is too real as it is.

    The only thing I really care to actually deal w/in 3D MYSELF is video games (Gran Turismo and Madden).

    What do I know though right?
    • I'd love to be able to deliver 3D content for one of my products [medicalmedia.com] but there's no standard right now, and in corporate environments, it's not just a matter of asking the user to install a plug-in. Half the time IS (Mordak) just won't allow it in their "standard-build". A standard built-in 3D viewer in a browser would be manna for me.

      So, just because the applications aren't obvious and currently mass-market doesn't mean that gaming is the only audience.

  • maybe there's a reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:56PM (#4065019) Homepage Journal
    Maybe the reason there's very little 3D content on the web is because there's no need?

    Just because I can spawn 50,000 popups and have 10 Flash animations playing music at the same time doesn't mean I need it. Some of the best websites - Google's a perfect example - are good because they're simple and elegant.
    • Or maybe it's because the formats are crap?

      But I know what you mean. The pop-under popups are really annoying on my dual monitor setup. They often appear on both monitors!
      (W2K)
    • There's plenty of need:

      -discrete manufacturing partners could share parts, assemblies and full products via the internet. Ideally you'd search for a bolt via a google like search engine and it'd pull up a 3d representation of the bolts available. You could rotate it etc to see if it'll fit into your product.

      -web sales would benefit immensely. You can already pull up 3d representation of the car you'd like to buy (via flash?) on some auto manufacturers sites. I've got to imagine that took quite a bit of work that wasn't directly derived from the engineer's models. With a standard format, I've got to imagine it'd be somewhat simple (or at least reusable) to have a web interface to add options which change the model. Web sales will not overtake brick and mortar until the user can at least spin a product in 3d to get a feel for it, not to mention build to order.

      -repair and support could be placed on the web. The article states how the armed forces could have repair manuals available via web with all the parts, etc. Same for auto repair. At least they're getting away from printed repair docs, but I believe most still come in proprietary format via CD monthly or quarterly for big bucks. Doubt the ma & pa repair shops can afford it.
      • That's all well and good for people/companies with high-speed connections. The problem is that, just like with Flash and other bandwidth-hogging technologies, this has the potential to be used for Evil as well as Good.

        Sears.com [sears.com] has an online parts ordering system that's pretty slick. It incorporates Java to bring up schematics for power tools and such. Cool idea, but it sucks at dial-up speeds. I needed a rebuild kit for my lawnmower last year. I was able to order it, but I cursed them the whole way because they didn't give me an alternative to their slow-as-molasses way of doing things on their web site.

        Now, will bandwidth eventually catch up? Most likely so but, in the meantime, this has the potential to negatively impact the web experience for many.

    • "Maybe the reason there's very little 3D content on the web is because there's no need?"

      I'm a 3D guy. I make 3D models. I hate using any software but Lightwave. This isn't a religious choice, it's a matter of learning curve. Even though fundamentally, all 3D Apps work pretty much the same, they have very different paradigms (god I cant believe I actually used that word) to learn in order to be effective in them. To me, the idea of learning a brand-new 3D app just to make fancy 3D widgets in a web page is not exciting.

      Give me a plug-in that accurately spits out Lightwave content into their format (i.e. I shouldn't have to tweak it after the fact!) and I'll be happy to generate content. Until then... Well JPEG's and .AVI's are good enough.
  • on a pool on how many pr0n comments this one will generate?

  • Need is obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yamla ( 136560 ) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:57PM (#4065024)

    'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the Web, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.'

    What? That strikes me as very very strange. The volume of Jeri Ryan [jerilynn.com] content on the web is similarly minuscule, well under 1 percent. Nobody is saying we need a common format for Jeri Ryan content.

    Isn't it just possible that most people don't have 3D content they want to share via the web?

    • Isn't it just possible that most people don't have 3D content they want to share via the web?

      Well, if people got it into their heads that 3D content on the web is cool, then maybe they'd want to get some 3D content to put in the web. Hmm, what companies sell software to help produce 3D content? Who's promoting this common format?
    • Nobody is saying we need a common format for Jeri Ryan content.

      Well, it is now obvious that there should be one! We could call it the Jeri Unified Graphics Standard or, as an acronym, ... well, you get the idea.

    • Delivering sad news is never easy. After much consideration, we've decided to bring to a close The Official Jeri Lynn Ryan Fan Club and The Official Jeri Lynn Ryan Homepage.

      I just knew it! The Borg took her!

    • Damn, you stole my comment. :) VRML was the industry's first attempt to shove a 3D web format down our throats and I suspect there were more "VRML tutorials" online than there were actual live sites.

      Speech recognition, the tablet PC, the PDA / cell phone combo and web portals are other examples of where the technology sector tried to tell people what they wanted without ever asking. The first two examples keep re-surfacing from obscurity time and again, every time the press is short a buzzword...

  • Hello? (Score:5, Funny)

    by swngnmonk ( 210826 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:58PM (#4065031) Homepage
    Hello problem?? This is solution!! Problem?? Problem??

    PROBLEM, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!

    • Strange that you don't realize that the lack of a standard is a problem.
    • Hello problem?? This is solution!! Problem?? Problem?? PROBLEM, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!

      Web Services is joining 3D in the hunt. They just found Push Services dead of starvation in a dusty corner. Stay tuned...

  • Forget Intel, Macromedia, et. al. No 3D standard will be viable until it is ratified by the true Web technology leaders - the pr0n industry!

  • adobe was working on a web-based 3d application called atmosphere [adobe.com] -- it sould even import objects from 3d applications, and could use javascript to let users interact with the objects. it was a neat idea -- you could create whole 3d worlds with gif and jpeg surfaces and have fully rendered 3d objects in the middle, with small file sizes.

    what ever happened to this? another one for the toilet?

    (note -- this app is, naturally, windows only. but if you have windows, check out the contest winners [adobe.com]. neat!)

  • Still no obvious *need* (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ranulf ( 182665 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @04:59PM (#4065042)
    They claim that 'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the Web, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.'

    Note that this just says that there is hardly any 3D content. Just making yet another file format available is not going to create more content. Sure, it'll ease migration of file between applications, but little else.

    And anyway, wasn't VRML supposed to be the de-facto standard for 3D on the web?

  • VRML (Score:3, Informative)

    by czaby ( 93380 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:00PM (#4065051) Homepage
    So what happened to VRML [web3d.org]?

    • Re:VRML (Score:2, Troll)

      by unicron ( 20286 )
      It was beaten back into darkest, blackest pit of hell from which it came.

  • Whats with the "To Rule Them All" stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coene ( 554338 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:02PM (#4065064)
    OK, so LOTR was a decent movie, but I'm getting really sick of this slogan being put places it really shouldent be. Just my (albiet, off topic) 2 cents.
  • ... but a uniform 3d format would be a great improvement. I'm learning some 3d by working on a polygon pusher and I discovered that finding good specs and a good format which is supported by a wide range of modellers is impossible. The closest I came was the .obj. I just hope theyll make it xml compatible so that I don't have to write yet another meaningless parser.

  • Before they do that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:06PM (#4065095) Homepage Journal
    ... they need to make a 3D format that works across all 3D rendering packages. As it is, you can't go from Lightwave to 3D Studio MAX (or vice-versa) without having to make huge tweaks or changes to make it work. The most infuriating thing is that fundamentally, they aren't that different from each other. If somebody would come up with an 'esperanto' file format that anybody can support, then it's worth buying multiple 3d packages as opposed to sticking with just one.

    When that happens, then 3D artists will be able to use the 3D Package they are comfy with to generate 3d art for the web. Until then, nobody's going to convince me to use some other toolset I'm not familiar with just to support a gimmick.

    As stated before, 3D on the web is not a big screaming deal.
    • The most infuriating thing is that fundamentally, they aren't that different from each other.

      That's right. Their biggest difference is who's the publisher of the application. And it's also the reason why they're not very compatible with each other. Same thing in word processing: WordPerfect didn't have a filter to export to the latest Word format, now it's the other way around.

      My field is Mechanical Engineering, and it has the same problem with CAD software. Each major player (Dassault, PTC, Autodesk, etc.) doesn't want you to be able to change your design application easily by having filters to export to other apps. And there are some "esperanto" formats, namely STEP and IGES.

      The problems with these standard formats seems twofold. First, nobody ever tried to actually implement them completely. So an IGES file produced with CATIA might (or might not) be importable from Pro/E. So if it doesn't open, you're screwed, unless you can find some other format (or chain of formats) to go from program A to program B. Second, these standards are, in fact, not so standard themselves. There are a couple of ways to do most things in each of them, so a complete implementation would be monstruous. And I think there are some areas just left to the implementor.

      Another thing to note is that even if you can get to the 3D geometry, it doesn't mean it will be modifiable. Of course you'll be able to add a hole or stuff like that, but if you say "Oh, this feature is not exactly what I want anymore, I need to modify this radius", you won't have access to the original feature because those two formats replace those higher level features by low level features (think at the level of lines and splines). Frankly, I'm not sure if they have indeed been intended for continuing design between applications, rather than just having access to the 3D geometry for further processing (think 5-axis milling).

      But the thing is, it can be a desired feature of the format! That way, you can give away the final model, and not worry about possible modifications to it. Of course, it's not intended to allow you to change design application, just as 3DSMAX and Lightwave don't allow you to change easily...

      • Re: Before they do that... (Score:3, Informative)

        by pmz ( 462998 )
        Second, these standards are, in fact, not so standard themselves.

        Even though IGES is a standard, your complaint about it is common, where the standard is too ambiguous and is never implemented fully or even correctly.

        STEP is also a standard (ISO-10303) which strives to deal with ambiguity, but it is monstrous, as you said. STEP is a collection of many standards (well over 100), with a subset of those being application-specific schemas suitable for CAD data interchange. The most popular of these is AP203, which is actaully what Pro/E's "STEP" export mostly is (I believe Pro/E does AP214, also). No vendor-provided CAD translator supports all of AP203, but the CAD companies have reached a rough consensus on the subset of functionality supported. This means it can be used to transfer model geometery between CAD systems. Unfortunately, AP203 does not support finer-grained details like parameterized solid features, so there most likely will be information lost in transferring a complex model. Other formats, such as AP224, can capture solid features, but AP224 support is not nearly as wide-spread as AP203 and is mainly used in niche processes.

        Another thing to note is that even if you can get to the 3D geometry, it doesn't mean it will be modifiable.

        STEP is designed for data interchange and really isn't designed to be a "live" format like the native Pro/E .prt and .asm files. To this end, the STEP formats focus on mathematical correctness over raw efficiency, which is partly the cause for the their large file sizes.

        I'm not sure if they have indeed been intended for continuing design between applications, rather than just having access to the 3D geometry for further processing (think 5-axis milling).

        Passing data down a work flow is very much one of the goals of STEP. The real design work is done in a system like Pro/E, then the STEP file can be sent to others for proofing and, finally, manufacturing. In general, the STEP file is a result of the design work, instead of being a part of an on-going design process.

        You've probably guessed by now that I have worked with STEP. One thing I have learned is that a ubiquitous 3-D format for the WWW will be a terribly difficult undertaking. STEP has done a reasonable job of capturing the concepts of 3D modelling, but only after 30 or so documents to define the fundamental constructs, another two or three for the file format, and another few dozen documents to capture the requirements for specific problem domains. This is literally thousands of pages of specification.

        I wish the Web3D people the best of luck.
        • Thank you pmz for the specifics.

          Then, would something well understood and implemented like the dxf format would be a better start, or is it too old now (ie, without support for many things people are accustomed to)?

    • Crossroads is a good package for converting object formats..

  • As someone who uses several different programs that use three dimensional modeling (including finite element simulation and CAD for machining), I would love to see an open, text based file format for describing these things.

    Most of the three dimensional editors that I use suck in some way. I don't hold it against them, it's a tricky thing to do. But I'd love to be able to generate my own 3-D files from a script - so that I could generate many variations, for example - which is something most editors don't let you do. An open file format would be a great boon to those of us doing 3-D CAD work, as we could get into writing some of our own tools with a minimum of effort.

  • oh hell no (Score:3, Funny)

    by crea5e ( 590098 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:08PM (#4065110)

    I don't want any 3d pop up/under ads.
  • Reading the post it seems that people think that 3d isn't necessary. Well then how often do we hear people complaining about modern guis being bad. This might be an alternative. I know browsing isn't regular GUI, but it could give us a new dimension (doh.) It could spur new ways of navigating. I'm not saying the newspage fonts should be 3d. 3d and 2d should be combined. One could for instance navigate a page in 3d and then lock on to the interesting things you wish to read.
  • As someone who runs a 3d oriented online community (PoserPros [poserpros.com]), I think a standard for 3d content is long, long overdue. We will soon be launching a 3d asset store for our community, and if the browsers had a full featured 3d standard today, it would just open that many more option to display our content to our members.

  • 3d is an old joke... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GGardner ( 97375 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:11PM (#4065128)
    3d technology is bound to revolutionize the web the same way it revolutionized the movies...
  • remember-that-intel-sells-chips dept

    Intel used to do research in fractal image compression too. back in the early 90's.

    btw, why nobody uses it? it compresses much better than JPEG, IIRC, and it has smaller file size etc.

    besides -- a common 3D thingy can probabbly help Intel optimize code for their SSE and MMX etc. which is all about "the web" now-a-days =) (p.s. anyone notice there are no more intel commercials on TV now?)

  • I'll tell you why 3D web content is so scarce (Score:5, Informative)

    by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:26PM (#4065211) Journal
    And I should know, because I do a lot of work producing it. It is by no means a lonely field, but there are relatively few people who do it.

    Why put anything on the web? It's relatively cheap compared to printing flyers or magazines or novels, and there is really no parallel for instantly delivering interactive media (I've done dozens of web-based games, 3D and 2D using all of the technologies you've heard of and I'm sure several you haven't). But really, why?

    You see, 3D is complicated. I've regularly had to participate in hiring of modelers and artists capable of collaborating producing good, efficient 3D art on a deadline, and real skill in this field is still rare. I know the tools, and I've watched them work, and I see why. It takes a unique blend of manual dexterity, artistic ability, spatial skills, math, and geekdom - especially the last, because you have to be a geek to keep up with the tools and the issues, which are heinous. That law about the more special-purpose and expensive a piece of software is, the worse it is, applies to 3D tools in spades. There are so many bizarre little problems.

    Last but not least, most of the widely used 3D authoring systems are, or have historically been, very very expensive - $5,000 - $10,000 - $25,000 is not an unusual amount to spend just on software. There are cheaper tools, but remember, you have to interoperate with web middleware, and pretty much everything just imports from 3D Studio Max. And then, what's your presentation platform? VRML (ech)? Shockwave 8.5 (~$1,000)? There are others... my point is that most of these cost money too. Pre-rendering to Flash is the cheapest and actually very attractive, but then you don't get anything in real time and it's really just a clever trick for making a canned animation.

    The net result is that there are very few hobbyists producing 3D for the web - games or anything else. And then we have companies. So why would companies want to produce 3D content when they get almost as much oomph with good 2D technology (or just plain graphics) without the significant costs, and endless technology headaches? That's because even with the best middleware, you might see 10-25% of your users have some kind of 3D hardware/software related problem... old video drivers bunging up D3D which bunges up whatever your middleware is, weird budget 3D cards, software mode, etc... Most businesses just want to spend the least amount of money to reach the largest possible audience. And that was true before the drive to produce any kind of non-ecommerce-related commercial web content at all pretty much dried up.

    There are still a few people left who we haven't eliminated who, for whatever reason, it makes sense to produce 3D for the web. Product demos, promotional games, and the rest. Believe me, competing for their business is far from easy. ;)

    Don't get me wrong; I welcome better tools and better standards. There might be a niche for simple object inspection or static environment presentation ala a not-totally-braindead-VRML. But it's really not a big deal at all. Most of the real issues to do with web 3D are on the OS side of the equation - uniformity of hardware, APIs, cross-platform issues, etc. IOW just "Stability" and "Reliability." It's really, really hard to deliver 3D content to a wide PC audience even without the massive additional headaches of the web. At the end of the day, I think web 3D will come into its own when we collectively find it easy to author 3D the way we author text-and-graphics websites now - in other words, maybe never. Until then, it will remain a specialized niche which is (these days) reasonably well served by the existing toolmakers and not really susceptible to wide-ranging standards due to the divergent needs of the participants.
    • Yep -- anyone can throw together a web page, even my grandparents. But how is my grandmother supposed to be make 3D web page? Why would she want to?

      Why a 3D web? A 2D layout works for most everything. Print media uses it, with the odd smeary hologram being the exception. It's much easier to manipulate and organize.

      There's several problems with a 3D web:

      1. It's hard to make. There won't be many 3D pages. Why do I want this if I have to spend a lot of time for a little bit of result? That doesn't look good if I'm not an artist? I can do layout, but not modelling, texturing, etc.
      2. You'd have to rely on a wide range of capabities. Slow to fast, custom gaming rigs to business machines with crappy 3D capabilities. It would be difficult to produce nice-looking 3D with the capability to degrade gracefully.
      3. You'd have to create compelling content that is prohibitive under 2D. How many weblogs need 3D support to tell their stories? How many news sites need 3D to show what has happened? What does 3D get you that a well-designed 2D site doesn't? There are purposes for 3D, but the vast majority of web sites would not benefit.
      4. Seperation of content from presentation. In 3D, content is in presentation. This violates a prime concept for the web. How do people with disabilities get information from your 3D page?

      And that's not even looking into the issue with interfaces with a 3D page.

      Or the complaints you'd get from all the 486/Pentium linux users complaining that it takes too long to render/use (even after lynx has 3d support... ;)

      • I agree with most of what you say however, you are missing some of the point.

        I don't think the intention is a 3d web. (yet) The idea is to make 2D representation of 3D data easier and more interactive.

        Most of us really have little need for these things because the standard 2D we have now does the trick. There are clear uses though that are hard to get done today.

        - Interactive product selling demonstrations. Want to get a closer look at that new hip mp3 player? How does it look in your favorite color? Will the addons make it too bulky? Where exactly are the connections? All of these questions can be answered today with 2D, but 3D can tell the story better. Yes it takes more than an aging Pentium to render, but that is ok given how cheap hardware is these days.

        - Collaboration between engineering industrial design manufacturing and others working on multi-company projects is getting big these days. Currently it is hard to do. A coupla posts above illustrate this nicely so I won't do it again but to say that doing these things without the costly 3D application and the skills to run it are important.

        - Business data presentation. 2D does a lot, 3D can make some trends and patterns obvious where 2D cannot. Make the whole thing move and you get to a point where some CEO somewhere can see a little blob form on the screen, move change shape and relate that to a new market trend that could change their business. Illustrating this sort of thing with charts and graphs really does not have the same ability to communicate higher level ideas. If it did, the big boys would not be using advanced 3D techniques to aid their understanding of their efforts.

        Most all of the things you mention would indeed be hurt by 3D. Heck, flash and java script can ruin most of them, but these are not really the reason that 3D is not more common today.

        The reason we do not have much 3D content is because with todays toolsets, 3D content is hard to create and present, not that we don't need to make use of it.

        I have worked with companies that needed to get a technical concept across to people with little technical background. Maybe at a trade show, or as a sales tool to help them show their potential customers exactly how their product is different. Most of these to date have been pre-rendered animations that were hard to produce and quite expensive really. Even without interactivity, the effort appears to be worth it. These guys try to illustrate their concepts with pages of 2D documentation containing stats, graphs, and analogies that take way too long to wade through. One simple 30 second animation can make that same process painless. Your potential customer will go, "Ohh, that's what it does, or that's why yours is better." Once that connection is made, both parties have a solid foundation for further practical communication. This is worth a lot.

        Communicating this way is worth the effort for large companies now. Standards like this will make it possible for smaller ones which is why it is worth doing.

        I have issues with this particular effort, though. I wonder exactly why they appear to be ignoring XGL (Open GL via XML). Some good Open work has already been done, why not take advantage of that and build on it?

    • (* and pretty much everything just imports from 3D Studio Max. *)

      Question:

      Do many places use Blender, or can that export in Max format also?
      • Actually, nothing imports from 3D Studio Max or exports to *.max format. Conversely, almost everything imports and exports 3D Studio (*.3ds) (the old DOS version).

        *.3DS is a static format. It can be read an parsed by just about anybody because the file stores the geometry as it was when the file was saved.

        On the other hand, *.max (3DS Max format) is dynamic. 3DSMax works based on the concept of a modifier stack. You start with base geometry (plane, cylinder, sphere, polygon, etc...) and add modifiers to a stack. Each modifier affects the modifier below it and on down to the base geometry. It's flexible because you can jump to any point in the stack at any time and affect a change. It's also powerful in the fact that 3rd parties can write modifiers that can extend the usefullness of 3DSMax in any number of ways (http://www.digimation.com)

        The .max format is a file that basically says, "here is the base geometry and the execution list for all of the modifiers that need to be run on it." So, without the modifiers there is no way to read the file in and make sense of it. Since the modifiers only run within 3DSMax you can only read the file into 3DSMax.

        There are exactly zero 3rd party stand alone tools that can read a *.max file in and do anything with it. Okino Polytrans can convert *.max files to other formats but it does so by running from within 3DSmax as an export filter.

  • I can see a good use for 3D graphics on the web.

    Let's say you are researching cars for a new car purchase. One day, you may go to Toyota's website and bring up a preview of their new Celica. Because it's a 3D model generated from the original Cad data, you would be able to zoom in, view it, and see the car in all its glory, even down to the smallest of details.

    That, is a GOOD use of 3D technology on the web.

    But, then there are the bad uses. Have any of you actually watched the movies? Let's use one in particular as an example: Jurassic Park. Do you remember the web manager on the computers when the annoying brat girl was trying to restore security within the compound? Zooming around in a 3D world trying to find the information you need? Give me a freaking break! We as a species can barely even understand information organized in a 2 dimensional plane, not to even talk about 3. Every interface I've seen that tries to throw some 3D interface on top of something has just been plain BAD.

    Still, you could use 3D for some good stuff. Using 3D to add nifty graphical flourishes and to speed up the rendering of PDF/Flash like graphics are another good use for 3D. Hell, maybe one day we'll even have a 3D (say a toolbar) that you can drag around, and then pull and push it in 3D. Might be a good way to zoom in and zoom out while scrolling around a 3D view, but to think that the entire computer interface can be written in 3D is stupid.

    So where does that leave us? Well, we can do the 3D now with Java, or ActiveX or something similar. It's not the ideal solution, but nothing ever is.

    So let's develop a new 3D format. Oh wait, graphics capabilities are changing faster than our microprocessors. By the time they come up with something decent, I can all but guarantee it'll be obsolete.

    And bandwidth? Hah! Do they even realize how much bandwidth even a small scene could potentially takeup? Most of the world is STILL running over dialup!

    Quite frankly, I think it's just NOT practical, which is why we haven't seen it yet. In all honesty, why can't they just make OpenGL a standard interface for JavaScript? Imagine if your browser window was an OpenGL view, and you could control that with javascript? Who needs flash anyway? :)

    Bryan
    • Well, the whole neato notion of 3D formats like VRML is that you could fit a LOT of cool interactive data in a small file. So that's not actually the problem.

      In order to make something scriptable, it needs to be on a much higher level than GL. They've already made GL bindings for Perl and Python, but nobody uses them because they are far too slow.

      One big problem is that there's far too many disperate uses for an open 3D format. It would be nice to have a 3D format we could use for games, but there's far too many problems there. CAD has one set of requirements, making pretty pictures has another set of requirements, etc. etc. etc.

      I suspect that we'll see the GUI reorganized to take advantage of the video card's 3D circutry to give every app a speed boost before any 3D format catches on.

      And within the next year or two, nobody's going to be too interested in 3D on the web because they all spent far too much on the web in general.

      The only thing that they have any hope of managing to create is a nice alternative to the standard DXF and OBJ formats that most 3D software can roughly parse through.
  • Useless and impractical as that standard may be.

    Computer screens are 2D. TWO DIMENSIONAL. Thus, they're best suited to displaying TWO DIMENSIONAL things, not 3D things (games are an exception).

    3D file browsers, web pages, word processors, and whatever else are cool, but not nearly as useful as the plain old 2D ones. FACT -- its hard to read stuff at an angle.

    Lets give the 3D stuff a rest. It may be cool, but its completely useless. I am not a believer that people can always handle things better in 3D. Try finding some file on your desk. You can do it, but it'll take you awhile. Certainly not as convenient as the way an OS displays files, organized in folders and whatnot.

    3D interfaces will never be useful on a 2D screen. When VR helmuts and suits become common, then maybe 3D interfaces will find their use, but I'm still doubtful.

    The fact is, any thing which is supposed to be productive and is in 3D is just a publicity stunt. Make it look cool. Who cares if it works or not. 3DOS -- useless. Fsn -- useless. Fsv -- useless. 3DWM -- useless. Need I go on? I've used all the 3D interfaces just because they're cool. That doesn't mean that I'm going to use them on a regular basis to do actual work.

    As for web-sites, they should convey INFORMATION, not show off the latest new flashy useless technique which hogs up all of our bandwidth.

  • Uh oh, Web3D Consortium (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @05:36PM (#4065277) Homepage
    There are really two completely different projects here. One is X3D [web3d.org], which is basically VRML 97 in XML syntax. The other is Hoops 3D [hoops3d.com], which is an binary interchange format for CAD documents. These are completely different. The two organizations are having some meetings with each other.

    X3D is definitely a solution looking for a problem. The Web3D crowd basically killed VRML by announcing their "new, improved, XML-based solution", used by nobody, supported by nobody, and with very little active work. If you get their SDK disks, it's mostly old VRML stuff and old Java3D stuff. This was sad, because it happened just about when hardware got good enough to do VRML properly. VRML over broadband with a current-generation OpenGL board works quite well.

    I haven't looked much at HOOPS, but it's a reasonable idea. IGES, the old FORTRAN-based interchange format (80 column lines, no less) is a bit dated.

    • - The Web3D crowd basically killed VRML by announcing their "new, improved, XML-based solution" [...]

      I was under the impression that Microsoft killed VRML. Just when it was starting to get interesting, MS bought one of the more advanced VRML plugin makers, Liquid Reality (I think it was). They were just about to release their latest Netscape plug-in, the IE plug-in wasn't even in pre-release phase, yet. Then, just before the release, MS bought them, changed the liquid metal siloet logo to a cone, sphere, and cube (too sexy for MS), and announced that the Netscape plug-in would not be released until an IE version were also ready. So far as I know, it never happened.

      Naturally, all of the other VRML browsers, seeing MS buy a VRML browser company, threw in the towel and stopped development. Why continue making a plug-in when MS is just going to bundle theirs and kill you off?

      VRML was yet another casualty of Microsoft's drive to own the Net. MS has really been the center of killing innovation on the Internet.

  • Its real simple:

    What really brought down the cost of 8mm and Super 8mm projectors in the 70's? Porn available on that format which you could watch in your home.

    What finally got VCR sales high enough that prices started to come down? Porn videos becoming available in the early 80's.

    What made online BBS's really take off in the mid to late 80's? Porn available on the BBS's.

    What made Usenet really take off in the real early 90's? uuencoded porn available for download.

    What made the e-commerce finally take off? What industry defined profitability on the net? Porn.

    Why does DVD have multi-angle? Porn.

    Its real simple, until you can get 3-D porn through these standards, they'll remain niche. Why do you all think virtual reality has never taken off? Its not lack of processing power. Its lack of inexpesive, private, immersive sexual virtual reality experiences.

  • Just a continuous string of ones and zeroes, straight into my noggin. All, 2D, 3D and 4D information can be serialized.
  • I recently had to design a machine using truespace. Most machine shops DO NOT have any sort of 3d availiable for downloading part samples.

    Most of them might provide 2d drawings in pdf format, or 2d cad drawings. But when you have a customer that wants his entire assembly to be built and animated in 3d 2d is pretty useless as you have to recreate the parts.

    It isn't just small outfits either, bigger outfits like seimens just doesnt provide anything usefull. We're using a seimens PLC controller on this machine, but siemens had NOTHING.

    So it doesn't really matter what the big boys do. In the last 4 months i've been working on this project about %90 of the parts had to be recreated from 2d or guesstimamite. Unless the parts manufacturers are willing to pay someone to re-create these 2d drawings into 3d it just wont happen.

  • First of all, that is one broken web page, even in IE6.

    Secondly, CAD is not the same as simple 3D content. Computer Aided Design is an amalgam of information, including three-dimensional objects but which also includes data integration. Obviously linking type methods like hypertext can be useful, but is really only the tip of the iceberg. I can't imagine that 99.9 percent of web users could even begin to use all the capability a true CAD system offers. We can't even get most in our architectural office to make use of the $5K/station 3D software everybody already has.

    Thirdly, AutoCAD owns the CAD market. Until there's a respectable Open Source CAD project, we are all doomed. See my CAD pages [mindspring.com] for more info on the current possibilities.

  • Maybe something like VRML would have more success if it didn't try to reinvent the wheel.

    Rather than coming up with completely new standards, take OpenGL and OpenInventor and bind it to a standard scripting language (JavaScript or IEEE Scheme). That way, you get a 3D object representation and behavior for free, it's easy to implement, and people don't have to spend as much time learning more ad-hoc stuff.

    Efforts like Alice and Yindo [yindo.com] show that such systems are easy to use and can work as browser plug-ins, although their choice of scripting languages probably doomed them as possible web standards (neither Python nor Lua have an implementation-independent standard, while JavaScript and Scheme have independent standards from ECMA and IEEE, respectively).

  • Macromedia, Adobe, Autodesk etc? Who are they kidding.

    The likelihood that these guys will be able to come up with anything standard, ever, is miniscule.

    Autodesk aren't interested in standards, they change .DWG to delibeartely obfuscate it with every release of AutoCAD.

    Super-basic, triangles-only DXF has become a grudging standard in 3D but its a crappy one at best since it doesn't contain texture/meta-data at all.

    Intel? If their software standards are anything like their chip packaging standards (can you say 'Slot 1') then forget it.

    Adobe? Hell, Adbobe probably just want to patent the idea of a standard 3D file format so they can sue Macromedia over it.

    All of these companies will fuck each other over without a moments hesitation if there is a whiff of money or legal leverage to be had, so this 'consortium' is just a joke.

    As a 3D content creator (modeller, animator), i have zero confindence in the ability of this group of companies to drive a 3D standard, especially a standard they are going to reinvent.

    Surely a good first step would be to make a fast, standards-compliant VRML browser and release that , as opens source, for every major platform available, possibly bundling it with Mozilla, (yeah right, NIH) IE?

    Even if VRML is somewhat limited (and it isn't really that limited, anyway), it is a standard, it works, and its here today.

    The companies involved could then focus on writing plugins, tools and editors to enable VRML presentation, instead of half-assedly trying to come up with yet another 'standard' that doesn't actually benefit anyone anywhere, or reuse the work that has already been done on 3D standards so far, and which will be doomed to fail just like every other 3D web standard that hasn't been adopted because theres always a bunch of arrogant fucks like this 'industry consortium' bleating on about how they will magically 'do it better' this time.

  • There is a 3d Flash program called Swift3d that seems to put out good results, and works with just about anything..

  • OpenGL, of course (Score:2, Insightful)

    by death00 ( 551487 )

    SGI designed OpenGL with a client/server architecture from the ground up. With current high-speed internet connections, this is becoming more feasible. You're not going to get frame rates in the hundreds per second, but with texture caching and data compression, OpenGL could be a good solution to this.

    This page [listensoftware.com] is a good reference on this.

  • Naturally, I cannot be troubled to read the article for further details. Can we assume there will be patents out the ass on this "standard"?

    Where's the W3C on this one?

    • Nope. Web3D Consortium that is overseeing this has a very strict - No IP, No Patents stance. Before any group is allowed to sign up to the consortium they must sign the waiver. Intel, who is doing the bulk of the member recruiting for this group is also fiercly insisting on the waiver too. Don't expect this to become another MPEG.

  • Recently the XHTML 2.0 standard became a topic of discussion, and it is touted as essential to move forward in the publication of content to new and exciting platforms, including web browsers on computers of course, cell phones and small devices, and of course television.

    That last one got me thinking. I wonder if this effort is going to be aimed at any 3D content publication (especially advertising...).

    Another platform is digital books... suppose your eTextBooks (for which you have no doubt paid a small fortune for LICENSE FEES), are filled with some secure form of XHTML content and standardized 2D and 3D image formats and rendering. How cool would it be to have a medical textbook with a 3D walkthrough of the colon?

    Perhaps the content will be displayed on those billboards as seen in Minority Report, or maybe 3D content will be sent to your TiVo or Replay device over a special channel for nifty commercials. Or maybe some interesting user interface devices will start appearing on screens to navigate hundreds of channels, especially since we won't be able to record a lot of them.

    Anyway, my point is, thinking of "web technologies" in the context of a web browser downloading content over a modem (or better) onto your PC is fast becoming a dated concept. It's not pages and browsers so much as content and platforms, and both of the latter will only become more commercial and, if we're luck, cool over time.

  • I can see a reasonable market for 3D rendering tools, but the result only has to be a little movie, IOW a translation to 2D mpeg, which the *viewer* does not need 3D for. IOW, the maker of the image/movie needs 3D tools, but not the client (browser).

    Now, maybe interactive 3D would require 3D tools on the client-side. For example, browse around in a virtual art gallary (kind of like the earlier Doom games, but less violent.)

    But, beyond that, it would get old hat pretty quick.

    Plus, if it is too complicated, then the navigation may confuse the viewer. For example, a virtual mall model where the reader can browse the mall via browser before shopping there. But, if the building is complicated, the user may go "F this, just give me a regular layered floor map with clickable areas!"

    The problem is that nobody can find a practical use for it that does not have decent 2D counterparts. Most uses would be esthetic-oriented, meaning they are likely to fall out of style after a small 3D boom.

  • As you can see from my .sig, and my un-updated URL, I used to be obsessed with just such a thing. Long story short, VRML-1 inspired, VRML97 failed to build upon it properly, failed to deliver, and worst of all failed to perform. A Quake-like VRML97 world renders on my system at less than 1 fps. Quake renders on my system at >30 fps.

    The answer to the 3d format question? NONE. Why? Because if you really want to do 3d, you can implement something in Java and load whatever format you want. I hate to say that, I spent a lot of time wishing it weren't true, but I had to face it. I also had to face the fact that standards are irrelevant in 3d because it's all about performance, Performance, PERFORMANCE. For the time being, 3d is one of the most peripatetic (sp?) art forms in a medium that is already very impermanent. Maybe 100 years from now when all our boxes are capable of rendering 3d so realistic that it can fool the human eye, it will make sense to lock into a format and create content that will be "for the ages". For now, the techniques are being obsoleted after every work of art is produced.

    It would be interesting to see more animation/CAD tools that export interactive Java-based 3d for the web. MSFT's C# stuff might do interesting things in browsers too, assuming it doesn't let some script kiddie take control of your system before the page loads.

    Then of course there is the fact that 99.999% of the time, you just don't need 3d on a web-page. I don't need the Magna Carta, Shakespeare, popular lyrics, or the Nevada State Code in 3d. Those panoramas of houses for sale and furniture displays that let you change the fabric on a sofa are cool, but those are just a few niche applications where it makes sense.

    Also, the availability of 3d tools doesn't make people 3d artists any more than the availability of camcorders makes people video artists. It turns out that people with a talent for visual art are (surprise, surprise...) rare! If you want to see more compelling visual arts, you are better off encouraging visual arts programs in the schools. Good luck.

  • There is not fucken way I am gonna wear those silly red and blue goggles!
  • There are already lots of common 3D formats. Why do we need another commom 3d format?

    This is just a marketing push. Formats are irrelevant. They are not holding back progress.
  • I am a little bit skeptical of this effort at the moment:

    Notice how a lot of the major MCAD companies are missing from this group? They do have a working group to address this, but I wonder how much success it will have when 3D collaboration on the net is a focus right now with products already on the market, or at the end of the development queue.

    Given some of the players, I seriously wonder how open this standard is.

    Adobe Systems Inc

    Dassault Systemes -- Owners of Solidworks, popular, but totally Microsoft (read) closed MCAD package. Yes I am slamming them!

    Microsoft Corporation -- What exactly do these guys have to do with 3D CAD? Nothing, but they want to own more of it. Check out Solidworks above and consider their development directions and development philosophy.

    Intel -- Currently playing both sides of the fence by selling base technology while at the same time courting Media companies and Microsoft to make sure the next wave of closed tech runs nicely on their hardware. (They have done good things, but not enough to sell me yet.)

    If you take a look here you will see XGL listed as a technology. This is OpenGL contained in an easy to parse format that is already capable of representing any 3D CAD data with good precision.

    http://www.web3d.org/vrml/types.htm

    Looking at that page, you also see X3D listed right above. I can't help but wonder about the relationship between the trademarks for OpenGL and X3D. Seems like more of the same OpenGL vs Direct X / 3D wars we have been seeing for some time now.

    Clicking on either of the X3D XGL links takes you to the X3D specification page. Hmmm.... No mention of XGL, just X3D and how it will improve on VRML.

    Another interesting fact here. Almost all MCAD and 3D visualization / Animation software makes use of OpenGL for its display. There are reasons for this. One simple one is that OpenGL really is open and runs anywhere. There are many others related to the strength and precision of this API.

    So, everyone is generating OpenGL displays for their MCAD. Converting this to XGL is going to be straightforward with the added advantage of being able to render an accurate WYSIWYG display for 3D.

    Why then, would everyone just go and embrace this new standard that breaks a lot of that?

    Just some food for thought.

  • That's an amusing notion!

    Yeah, they totally dominate 2d CAD, always have, always will. But in 3d they are totally irrelevant. Now that they've been shut out of 3d they're crying about the need for file standards just like all the companies they shut out of 2d were years ago. Boo-freaking-hoo!

    As others have said already, there is no need for 3d on the web. Those few who have a use for it are already doing it with the tools that are available already, and apparantly that only accounts for less than 1 precent of the content on the web.

    I used to publish 3d CAD drawings to our customer's personal project pages on the website of my old company. There already is a format that works great; it's called eDrawings. I know from experience that it'll convert from AutoCAD and SolidWorks, and I'm pretty sure it'll do Pro-E and SolidEdge as well. You can save it with the viewer embedded in a self-contained executable, file size is reasonable, the end-user has full control over rotation, zoom, etc., and it's as easy as printing to PDF.

    So, what exactly do these guys claim to be bringing to the table?

  • Its called Quake3, etc.

    Sheesh. How hard was that? Next!
  • Except for a few exceptions, such as vizualisating an object for the viewer, there is little or no point in having a 3d interface. And all the 3D that I've seen on the web has been dog slow, with horrible plug-ins for equally horrible browsers.

    I would rather see a successor to HTML that is leaner and more in line for what the web wants to be. It is no longer documents with some links, but some form of presentations with links.
  • So I follow the link to the article. And see Intel's website - doesn't even attempt to scale to my browser (looks like it's about 320x200), and has the article chopped up into little javascript bitlets with a fake "next page" icon that doesn't alter the URL so you can't link to it.

    And these guys want to participate in a web standard?
  • Going to vectorized formats instead of, or as a complement to, bitmaps has much more to offer than 'only' 3D graphics. You could have a 3D drawing of the space shuttle Atlantis, complete with measurements, part numbers, manufacturer data and results from the latest metallurgy test. You could zoom in and out of the drawing at will, with no jagged edges. Vectorized formats are not just pretty pixels, it can be a lot of data behind the scenes too.

    This Claimer: I have worked part-time as a consultant for ZoomON [zoomon.com], a producer of webified 3D Java-based software and purveyor of 3D file format converters. Lately, they have migrated towards vectorized content as a way to get lighter-weight graphics into mobile phones. They are cool dudes, check 'em out.

  • According to the article, 'the need for a common 3D format becomes clear in a simple perusal of the 19th century Russian novel, where the volume of 3D content is minuscule -- well under 1 percent.'

    Well under 1 percent of dinner forks are used for pulling people's eyes out. Clearly we need to improve the state of dinner fork technology.

    Some applications just don't need 3D. Previous experiments have shown that those applications include movies, TV, file managers, web pages, and tourist maps of London. Unfortunately people keep trying to apply 3D technology where it's not welcome. I'd like to send an open letter to the technology industry:

    Dear Technology Industry,
    I appreciate the many things brought to me over the years by your ceaseless drive to innovate. Things like the self-heating coffee can, the self-cleaning oven and the self-shitting fat substitute. But there are some areas of technological development that concern me. Not because I think they will transform the world into a grim dystopian warzone full of stalking insectoid cyborgs bent on the destruction of humanity, but because frankly you're wasting a lot of money on things nobody wants. Things like 3D web pages, animated paperclips, chocolate-covered pretzels and streaming video for telephones. Please, take the time to consult a 10-year-old child before spending billions of dollars on any new project. If the child's response is "what the hell use would that be?", consider moving your engineers to a different project.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close