4 ms·

I've been making 3d animations since 1996, websites since 1998, and compiled software since 2005. I've been employed in these capacities for the majority of my

I've been making 3d animations since 1996, websites since 1998, and compiled software since 2005. I've been employed in these capacities for the majority of my working life. So I'm speaking as a developer familiar with every aspect of a project like this. I know the amount of work that goes in to pioneering new technologies and the practical methodologies that capitalize on them. I realize that WebGL (et al.) is new, and presents challenges both technical and artistic surpassed only by the their afforded opportunities for new creative expression. I can clearly see the tremendous amount of effort that went into realizing this. But given that effort, shouldn't there have been greater regard given to the quality of the finished product? For instance, there's no technical limitation which accounts for the length of the demo, nor is there any benefit to that length. If the piece had been of a more concise focus, the artists involved may have been able to create imagery was as visually stunning as it was technically impressive. Instead, the graphical elements feel quite unpolished, dated, and they detract from the impact of the project. This is but one of many examples of how I feel this piece is a failure to deliver on this technology's potential. Certainly, the content of the work isn't as important as the technical systems needed to realize it. But if the purpose of such a demo is to show off what many splendours await us in this new era of the internet, wouldn't it be prudent to ensure that this demo actually works as expected? Why are so many people with Firefox 4 failing to run it? Why did it take me 5 tries to load the page? This isn't progress. It bothers me that so much effort went into something that comes very close to a level where the average consumer would be impressed, but falls short because of a lack of ability to execute. If this were a commercial product, the market would slaughter you. And while I realize that tech demos aren't commercial products in and of themselves, they're still marketing something. A technology, a technique, a browser. The recent advances in the web (CSS3, WebGL, HTML5, etc) are focused on improving online experiences. The biggest part of this is that they make it ever easier for all developers to create beautiful work. So it just bothers me to no end that people working on the forefront of this movement have such little regard for the beauty of their work. They're the ones carving the path. They should be showing us the new highs we may hit, on every level. They should be leading by example. There's no reason this tech demo couldn't have been as visually stunning as, say, the websites for 2advanced were back in the early days of Flash. As long as a Flash solution like Papervision3D would provide a superior realtime 3d experience to a majority of web surfers (if this demo is anything to go by), we're not yet at the Web Page Of The Future.

windsurfer 15y ago
I don't have any comment on your subjective criticism of the demo as art or some kind of advertisement, since I don't see it as either. I see it as an impressive demo. I understand your point and respect it, I simply see it differently. However, you then state: As long as a Flash solution like Papervision3D would provide a superior realtime 3d experience to a majority of web surfers (if this demo is anything to go by), we're not yet at the Web Page Of The Future. Excuse me but have you seen Papervision stuff? It's pretty lousy by comparison. No real-time video textures, no realtime shaders, no fancy lighting. Yes, flash is going to get 3D support (I worked at Adobe on Flash stuff, since we're flaunting our credentials) but this is at least 10 times as technically impressive, even to users. Did you notice there was a pause button? Can't do that in Flash without a major overhaul of the broken timeline system. Did you notice the beat detection? It was awesome. It would be a huge CPU hog in flash (if you have the security rights to access the audio stream) - no problem in Javascript with the Firefox Audio API. Oh, and your browser still acted like a browser, with all the preferences you had set. Papervision looks like a toy compared to the power of these technologies. Compare the laggy and simplistic Papervision demo: http://helloenjoy.com/projects/monstertruck/ http://helloenjoy.com/projects/monstertruck/ to the WebGL one by the same company: http://helloracer.com/webgl/ http://helloracer.com/webgl/ . Technically speaking, there's no contest.
- whatever_dude 15y ago
  If you want to get technical, Excuse me but have you seen Papervision stuff? It's pretty lousy by comparison. No real-time video textures, One absolutely can have real-time video textures, even using an outdated technology like PaperVision (and more so with the new, still not gpu accelerated, 3d software renderer). Did you notice there was a pause button? Can't do that in Flash without a major overhaul of the broken timeline system. The "timeline system" is not used in any real animation project. Did you notice the beat detection? It was awesome. It would be a huge CPU hog in flash (if you have the security rights to access the audio stream) - no problem in Javascript with the Firefox Audio API. It's not a CPU hog, and audio spectrum analysis features have been present in Flash for a long time - google "AS3 SoundMixer.computeSpectrum" for a specific, player-based API for that. And if you want to compare AS3 speed to JS -- you're dreaming if you think JS is that fast compared to AS3. On top of it all, Flash 11 beta already supports GPU-accelerated 3d on top of OpenGL (or DirectX or OpenGL ES, and a software renderer if all of these are unavailable). If you want to present features like the ones from this demo - that only a handful of people will see - then compare to the next version of Flash Player too instead, and let's see who doesn't support enough shaders. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=molehill+flash http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=molehill+flash Want to run them yourself? Here, this one puts that f1 car one to shame. http://alternativaplatform.com/en/demos/maxracer/ http://alternativaplatform.com/en/demos/maxracer/ I guarantee you: Flash Player 11 will reach 90% penetration on desktop devices before webgl even reaches half of that. Say what you will about the subjective advantages of this demo. But don't lie about the technology you're trying to advice against.

windsurfer 15y ago

I don't have any comment on your subjective criticism of the demo as art or some kind of advertisement, since I don't see it as either. I see it as an impressive demo. I understand your point and respect it, I simply see it differently. However, you then state: As long as a Flash solution like Papervision3D would provide a superior realtime 3d experience to a majority of web surfers (if this demo is anything to go by), we're not yet at the Web Page Of The Future. Excuse me but have you seen Papervision stuff? It's pretty lousy by comparison. No real-time video textures, no realtime shaders, no fancy lighting. Yes, flash is going to get 3D support (I worked at Adobe on Flash stuff, since we're flaunting our credentials) but this is at least 10 times as technically impressive, even to users. Did you notice there was a pause button? Can't do that in Flash without a major overhaul of the broken timeline system. Did you notice the beat detection? It was awesome. It would be a huge CPU hog in flash (if you have the security rights to access the audio stream) - no problem in Javascript with the Firefox Audio API. Oh, and your browser still acted like a browser, with all the preferences you had set. Papervision looks like a toy compared to the power of these technologies. Compare the laggy and simplistic Papervision demo: http://helloenjoy.com/projects/monstertruck/ http://helloenjoy.com/projects/monstertruck/ to the WebGL one by the same company: http://helloracer.com/webgl/ http://helloracer.com/webgl/ . Technically speaking, there's no contest.

whatever_dude 15y ago
If you want to get technical, Excuse me but have you seen Papervision stuff? It's pretty lousy by comparison. No real-time video textures, One absolutely can have real-time video textures, even using an outdated technology like PaperVision (and more so with the new, still not gpu accelerated, 3d software renderer). Did you notice there was a pause button? Can't do that in Flash without a major overhaul of the broken timeline system. The "timeline system" is not used in any real animation project. Did you notice the beat detection? It was awesome. It would be a huge CPU hog in flash (if you have the security rights to access the audio stream) - no problem in Javascript with the Firefox Audio API. It's not a CPU hog, and audio spectrum analysis features have been present in Flash for a long time - google "AS3 SoundMixer.computeSpectrum" for a specific, player-based API for that. And if you want to compare AS3 speed to JS -- you're dreaming if you think JS is that fast compared to AS3. On top of it all, Flash 11 beta already supports GPU-accelerated 3d on top of OpenGL (or DirectX or OpenGL ES, and a software renderer if all of these are unavailable). If you want to present features like the ones from this demo - that only a handful of people will see - then compare to the next version of Flash Player too instead, and let's see who doesn't support enough shaders. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=molehill+flash http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=molehill+flash Want to run them yourself? Here, this one puts that f1 car one to shame. http://alternativaplatform.com/en/demos/maxracer/ http://alternativaplatform.com/en/demos/maxracer/ I guarantee you: Flash Player 11 will reach 90% penetration on desktop devices before webgl even reaches half of that. Say what you will about the subjective advantages of this demo. But don't lie about the technology you're trying to advice against.