Let's make Google adopt VRML

[Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona]

Please read:

http://news.hiperia3d.com/2009/04/another-standard-for-web-3d-googl...

I have submitted the suggestion to make O3D adopt VRML or X3D in classical vrml encoding. The option is getting votes.

PLEASE GO THERE AND VOTE! Let's make VRML and X3D be supported by O3D!

Just login in Google account and go to:

http://moderator.appspot.com/#16/e=41eb1

And vote the option:

"Create support for VRML or X3D in classical VRML syntax because it's an already existing standard for web3D and it's easy for everyone"

[Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona]

Also, spread the word in all your forums

[Doctor]

Great suggestion for O3D. I have signed in to Google and voted for it.

I have also added a related suggestion to yours and would encourage people to sign in to Google and submit their vote.

My suggestion is: "In extension to Jordi's suggestion on VRML/X3D, I would suggest that X3D be used as the native/preferred format for 3D content in O3D. It is already an established open web standard with advanced features and is extensible (See http://web3d.org/)."

Please go to the following link to sign in to Google (or sign up for a free Google account) and then vote on Jordi's and my suggestions:

http://moderator.appspot.com/#16/e=41eb1

[Bruce Lehmann]

Done & done :-)

[Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona]

Thanks for your votes. We need more, as some people are voting down the option. I also voted your options.

I see another entry by Len (Len Bullard?): "Support the Web3D Consortium/OASIS/W3C standards for web3D, X3D and H-Anim given API support for native APIs such as Direct X and open standards such as OpenGL."

Is worth votes too

[alain]

I think I voted

( dont see where I could check that )

but good ideas , guys

[fabricator]

The multiple x3d/vrml suggestions are self defeating, as you can only have one yes and one no vote.

[Doctor]

Why do you say that Fabricator?
I was able to enter a separate vote on each entry -- they do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

[Doctor]

In looking at the votes so far it seems strange to me that someone would be opposed to Jordi's original suggestion that O3D merely support VRML/X3Dv (as opposed to my suggestion that it be the native format for O3D). Are there people out there that hate VRML/X3D so much that they would oppose any support for it whatsoever? Perhaps the Collada people (and others) are threatened by VRML/X3D. lol

It would be interesting to see a web site that compares VRML, X3D, H-anim, Collada and other non-proprietary formats/standards for 3D web content, and that includes a section devoted to dispelling myths that people have about the shortcomings of X3D.

Here are some myths that I have heard about X3D from people that support proprietary formats (and others):
* X3D does not support NURBS,
* X3D is much slower to parse and render than other 3D content formats,
* X3D does not have Shader support (whatever that means -- perhaps someone else can comment on this),
* X3D cannot be easily extended (lol, they call it "Extensible 3D" for a reason),
* X3D does not have strong scripting facilities,
* X3D does not have physics support.

I also hear a number of criticisms of VRML/X3D that have to do with some currently available viewer applications/plug-ins, but that are being directed at the language specification instead. That is, some critics of VRML/X3D (like the Caligari TrueSpace people that I spoke with) seem to confuse the language specification with the implementations that they have seen, completely failing to realise that a slow or incomplete implementation of a viewer for any 3D language will not be the fault of the language itself.

[Taranis]

Very nice idea, I've been voting for Jordi and Doctor proposals :)
Did you vote for me/my packaging design for the DD contest btw ? It's not more intrusive than registering to GG hehe. --> my design (register before as a contest participant to vote thanks) Voting again ?
Sorry, been digressing... A good link for O3D would be appreciated anyway, just don't know what it is :).

PS: check the link to vrml scene from my Wband D blog Dark Dog VRML scene

[Rick Kimball]

Did any of you read the technical documentation for O3D? It doesn't use Collada, it use its own json
representation of a 3d scene. (scene.json). All they do is provide a converter from Collada to their scene.json format as an example.

O3D is all open source, just go grab the code to the sample collada converter and use that as a guide
to make a version that spews out their json format from X3D/VRML.

O3D is all about plugin that provides lowlevel access to a 3d engine + the j8 javascript engine from chrome + json content.

It isn't about collada. It is about javascript.

-rick

[tutancamon]

Doctor said:

In looking at the votes so far it seems strange to me that someone would be opposed to Jordi's original suggestion that O3D merely support VRML/X3Dv (as opposed to my suggestion that it be the native format for O3D). Are there people out there that hate VRML/X3D so much that they would oppose any support for it whatsoever? Perhaps the Collada people (and others) are threatened by VRML/X3D. lol

It would be interesting to see a web site that compares VRML, X3D, H-anim, Collada and other non-proprietary formats/standards for 3D web content, and that includes a section devoted to dispelling myths that people have about the shortcomings of X3D.

Here are some myths that I have heard about X3D from people that support proprietary formats (and others):
* X3D does not support NURBS,
* X3D is much slower to parse and render than other 3D content formats,
* X3D does not have Shader support (whatever that means -- perhaps someone else can comment on this),
* X3D cannot be easily extended (lol, they call it "Extensible 3D" for a reason),
* X3D does not have strong scripting facilities,
* X3D does not have physics support.

I also hear a number of criticisms of VRML/X3D that have to do with some currently available viewer applications/plug-ins, but that are being directed at the language specification instead. That is, some critics of VRML/X3D (like the Caligari TrueSpace people that I spoke with) seem to confuse the language specification with the implementations that they have seen, completely failing to realise that a slow or incomplete implementation of a viewer for any 3D language will not be the fault of the language itself.

:))
Don't wary !
With VRML/X3D or without VRML/X3D, this O3D will be not used. I say this, because he is not a good graphic engine ... Peoples will be not use an aplication who eat huge resources just for funny ...
I'm sory for his developers, but thei have to do a lotof things for him to make him to be competitive ...
O3D is a dead project ... Another web3d engine birth dead ...

[Hiperia3D - Jordi R Cardona]

It is always good that other standards are created, but it's not good to make propaganda against the only ISO approved standard.

I know what Rick says, yes, I am just suggesting to have some kind of converter. I know O3D is a low level engine. If they want it to be really popular, a higher level language like VRML is much better.


I think that many people hate VRML because saying "it was born dead" makes them feel very smart, even when you can see by their comments that they have no idea of what it was. They feel very geek saying this, you know.




Doctor said:

In looking at the votes so far it seems strange to me that someone would be opposed to Jordi's original suggestion that O3D merely support VRML/X3Dv (as opposed to my suggestion that it be the native format for O3D). Are there people out there that hate VRML/X3D so much that they would oppose any support for it whatsoever? Perhaps the Collada people (and others) are threatened by VRML/X3D. lol

It would be interesting to see a web site that compares VRML, X3D, H-anim, Collada and other non-proprietary formats/standards for 3D web content, and that includes a section devoted to dispelling myths that people have about the shortcomings of X3D.

Here are some myths that I have heard about X3D from people that support proprietary formats (and others):
* X3D does not support NURBS,
* X3D is much slower to parse and render than other 3D content formats,
* X3D does not have Shader support (whatever that means -- perhaps someone else can comment on this),
* X3D cannot be easily extended (lol, they call it "Extensible 3D" for a reason),
* X3D does not have strong scripting facilities,
* X3D does not have physics support.

I also hear a number of criticisms of VRML/X3D that have to do with some currently available viewer applications/plug-ins, but that are being directed at the language specification instead. That is, some critics of VRML/X3D (like the Caligari TrueSpace people that I spoke with) seem to confuse the language specification with the implementations that they have seen, completely failing to realise that a slow or incomplete implementation of a viewer for any 3D language will not be the fault of the language itself.