6 ms·
WebGL exists, why do we need a budget restricted version of a model viewer in the browser? None of the motivations are at all convincing. Should browsers now be
by stefan_ 5y ago
WebGL exists, why do we need a budget restricted version of a model viewer in the browser? None of the motivations are at all convincing. Should browsers now be obliged to integrate with VR headsets?
- moron4hire 5y agoBrowsers do integrate with VR headsets. And it is awesome.
- gkilmain 5y agoThis is intriguing (and new to me). Can you point me to something you enjoy that I can look at? Not even sure what to search...
- moron4hire 5y agoThe API is called WebXR (https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr/, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebXR_Device_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebXR_Devic...). You can find a lot of "getting started" samples here (https://immersive-web.github.io/webxr-samples/ https://immersive-web.github.io/webxr-samples/). Mozilla Hubs (https://hubs.mozilla.com https://hubs.mozilla.com) is publicly available. Message me and I will show you what I'm making at work (it's not exactly hidden, but it's also only meant for our existing customers and I don't need the extra traffic from posting publicly).
- astlouis44 5y agoTry vrland.io/lobby
- vez- 5y agoCheck out "WebXR"
- tenaciousDaniel 5y agoNot only WebGL, but WebGPU is also in the works. I simply don't understand this proposal.
- imwillofficial 5y agoWhen I don’t understand something, I ask lots of questions.
- tenaciousDaniel 5y agoMy comment is general enough to be easily interpreted as a question. If you have an as to how this proposal is a necessary addition to WebGPU and WebGL, why not go with that, instead of snarky condescension?
- imwillofficial 5y agoNothing snarky about it.
- DocTomoe 5y agoAlso, both VRML and Web3D do exist.
- laumars 5y agoNot used Web3D but VRML is a dead language. Which is a pity because VRML was extremely fun to code in. Sadly it was a victim of being release too early (even VRML2 was out before most people 3D accelerators).
- zozbot234 5y agoVRML is not so much dead as subsumed by X3D, and any newly-proposed standard for 3D models on the Web should at least have feature parity with that.
- dangerface 5y ago> WebGL exists, why do we need a budget restricted version of a model viewer in the browser? WebGL support on safari is ropey at best why would apple implement a standard written by some one else when they can create a new standard no one asked for?
- imwillofficial 5y agoProposing adding something to the HTML spec is not “creating a new standard no one asked for” Don’t be deceptive. Inaccurate generalizations and hyperbole add nothing to the discussion.
- pessimizer 5y agoHolding a knife and moving your hand back and forth is not killing someone, either, but my omission of a few important details is the deception. In this case, the something being added to the HTML spec is a new standard that they are creating. I'm not going to argue whether anyone asked for it, but "nobody" is obviously hyperbole; Apple is asking for it.
- imwillofficial 5y agoWell there ya go, I called you on trite generalizations and hyperbole. Adding no truth or insight to the discussion. I for one think this is a future proofing move with little current utility. However I’m not one who thinks the AR/VR/ 3D Models in browser bandwagon is going anywhere within the next 5 years.
- 8note 5y agoWho asked for it?
- imwillofficial 5y agoAt the very least, Apple.
- marcellus23 5y agoCan you explain the steps necessary to display a 3D model using WebGL? (without using any 3rd party libraries). Could it possibly be easier than just pointing `src` to the URL of a model file?
- thrower123 5y agoWhat's the format of the 3D model? Are you going to build in support for all of the dozens of model formats that are in common use in every browser? Are you going to specify yet another new 3D model format as a standard target for browser to support?
- marcellus23 5y agoNot sure where you got the idea of yet another format, no one seems to be mentioning that here or in the proposal. Presumably browsers would support the most popular formats, just as they do with images and video. And just as with images and video, we'll likely end up in a situation where m most formats are supported by most browsers, with a couple odd formats that are only supported by some. Doesn't seem like a huge deal.
- fenomas 5y agoI'm only a casual at 3D, but my experience has always been that no two format implementations ever quite work the same way. Unless apple is proposing to elevate some existing implementation, that already has interop across various platforms, then I think anything they do would necessarily be Yet Another Format.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 8note 5y agoWouldn't an equivalent experience be <canvas> with no webgl used at all? Get to see a nice blank screen for both. Once you fiddle with all the settings so you aren't looking out from the inside of a monochrome polygon, you're going to approach the same complexity as the webgl version
- adamsvystun 5y agoNot exactly the same, but a similar question is then: "Canvas exists, why do we need an image element?"
- atom_arranger 5y agoI see a future where with some changes made to improve A11Y webpages are entirely rendered in WebGL.
- zshift 5y agoThere are many developers, especially those just getting into the field, that don’t understand how to work with WebGL. WebGL is a great fallback if you need/want more control, but having basic support for 3D elements is a great idea for someone that just wants to show it off.