5 ms·

During my limited time at FRL (i.e. Meta), I tried to be a proponent of X3D (successor of VRML), and the push back I got was tremendous. You're right that peop

During my limited time at FRL (i.e. Meta), I tried to be a proponent of X3D (successor of VRML), and the push back I got was tremendous. You're right that people want to reinvent it.

beaconstudios 4y ago
Well, thanks for fighting for standards adoption, even if it didn't work out. It's always good to have interoperability represented on the inside.
em-bee 4y ago
how did that pushback look like? to old? failed technology? i saw a lot of excitement around VRML at the university in the late 90s. the problem was that average computers just didn't have the capacity for 3d rendering back then. at the university we had high end SGI workstations, and of course these were used for impressive demonstrations of what VRML could do. but i guess because noone outside had computers capable enough it didn't catch on. the current generation is not aware of what we did back then and may not realize that lack of performance was the primary problem we were facing.
- mathgladiator 4y ago
  There's a bunch I can't really say, but I think a bunch of forms from bad incentives which don't align to any long term goals. My opinion is that the key idea of the metaverse definitely requires a standard like HTML which people can just hack on with text files. X3D is the closest in my opinion of achieving that, and I argued we should make X3D a first class citizen to overcome performance challenges of the browser/device. Even today, pick whatever web framework, and it just boils down to HTML. There really should be a common 3D substrate that is that easy.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Gamers often bought 3D cards for PCs by the late nineties.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Let’s stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that VRML is satisfactory, though IIRC it isn’t for various reasons. The real problem in the 90’s and today is that we haven’t figured out user interface hardware that people can/want to actually use for extended periods of time. Even today, literally every player in this space thinks it’s going to be a head mounted display/goggles/glasses. Until someone produces 3D/holo displays that don’t require gadgets affixed to your head and body in one way or another, I think AR/VR is going to be a failure for general consumer use no matter how slick the underlying rendering technology. Edited to add: something like Tilt5 where it’s very inexpensive and you aren’t expected to wear the device forever might be an exception.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    i agree that VR is still far away from taking off. i expect the solution is going to be something like CAVE, which we already had working in the 90s. by today it is feasible to have a 4-sided projector mounted in a room so that you can project a 3d environment to multiple walls and give you the feeling of being inside. 3D glasses like those used in movies today are light enough to help with the 3D effects too. but VRML wasn't just for VR. we are playing 3D games without VR for quite some time now, and there is no reason we couldn't use VRML or X3D today to create interesting experiences. in the end it comes down to how easy it is to create and distribute the content. what we need is another drive into browser support where we can embed a 3D object easily, and then maybe it will catch on.
singularity2001 4y ago
>> people want to reinvent it. Maybe with good reason: If it didn't take off last time maybe there are hidden stumbling block in the specification. Trying fresh might unconsciously bring the right ingredients this time. There is the faint possibility that specification and implementations were correct, just too far ahead of its time and infrastructure; it's usually worth taking this risk though. And of cause reinventing means owning and deeply understanding.
- outside1234 4y ago
  And they can't admit that the specification was fine - don't that would force them to effectively admit that there is a very small audience for this.
  - andybak 4y ago
    A little overwrought... "3d in a browser" sounds like a fairly broad use case. Three.js is fairly popular I hear.
- croes 4y ago
  Maybe because the hardware wasn't ready. Starting fresh could easily be the reason it's failing again because much time is wasted in reinventing the wheel. The problem is still the use case not the tooling.
  - bb88 4y ago
    One problem is that no format would solve the "who's in the room with you problem". You still need some kind of backend for that. You could see a future though where you go into one portal and you're in Minecraft, and you go into another and you're playing tennis with your buddy in Europe. Games would just be new portals -- the key here is that it's hosted by different companies, not Meta.
- mathgladiator 4y ago
  Part of the problem was that I couldn't even get people to dig into the specification. I came away with the distinct impression that people really don't want to admit that XML is good enough.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
I'm guessing that since this is a text-based markup language, a lot of people wanted a format that had a lot less friction in a compute-constrained mobile environment, preferably something that can be piped straight to a GPU. HTML is fine for the browser because it is mostly delivering text and JS, which are both processed in a CPU. Text files are inherently GPU-hostile, and that makes them a weird choice for a graphical markup language.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > Text files are inherently GPU-hostile, and that makes them a weird choice for a graphical markup language. The point of a standard is to be device agnostic. Tying it to present-day technical implementations would limit its adaptability to future tools, as well as creative misuse of the technology.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Then why tie the format to present-day technical tools like text editors? Why not invest in a format that makes sense and the tools to understand and work with it? Also, GPUs and their architecture aren't a fad, they have been the same for the last 30 years. If you want your format to be truly device agnostic, text is a bad format because it precludes many types of devices (GPUs and hardware accelerators) from being able to use it.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Text had been then same for the past 5000 years or so, predating text editors by an enormous margin.
- ianai 4y ago
  How are text files gpu hostile?
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Text files are very hard to efficiently parse in parallel because there are so many variable-length and conditionally present fields. That necessarily leads to branches in your code which GPUs are not designed for.
smrtinsert 4y ago
Reuse requires reading. I always figured Meta for a wheel reinventor. I always ignore their reach outs.

During my limited time at FRL (i.e. Meta), I tried to be a proponent of X3D (successor of VRML), and the push back I got was tremendous. You're right that people want to reinvent it.

beaconstudios 4y ago

Well, thanks for fighting for standards adoption, even if it didn't work out. It's always good to have interoperability represented on the inside.

em-bee 4y ago

how did that pushback look like? to old? failed technology? i saw a lot of excitement around VRML at the university in the late 90s. the problem was that average computers just didn't have the capacity for 3d rendering back then. at the university we had high end SGI workstations, and of course these were used for impressive demonstrations of what VRML could do. but i guess because noone outside had computers capable enough it didn't catch on. the current generation is not aware of what we did back then and may not realize that lack of performance was the primary problem we were facing.

mathgladiator 4y ago
There's a bunch I can't really say, but I think a bunch of forms from bad incentives which don't align to any long term goals. My opinion is that the key idea of the metaverse definitely requires a standard like HTML which people can just hack on with text files. X3D is the closest in my opinion of achieving that, and I argued we should make X3D a first class citizen to overcome performance challenges of the browser/device. Even today, pick whatever web framework, and it just boils down to HTML. There really should be a common 3D substrate that is that easy.
mixmastamyk 4y ago
Gamers often bought 3D cards for PCs by the late nineties.
KerrAvon 4y ago
Let’s stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that VRML is satisfactory, though IIRC it isn’t for various reasons. The real problem in the 90’s and today is that we haven’t figured out user interface hardware that people can/want to actually use for extended periods of time. Even today, literally every player in this space thinks it’s going to be a head mounted display/goggles/glasses. Until someone produces 3D/holo displays that don’t require gadgets affixed to your head and body in one way or another, I think AR/VR is going to be a failure for general consumer use no matter how slick the underlying rendering technology. Edited to add: something like Tilt5 where it’s very inexpensive and you aren’t expected to wear the device forever might be an exception.
- em-bee 4y ago
  i agree that VR is still far away from taking off. i expect the solution is going to be something like CAVE, which we already had working in the 90s. by today it is feasible to have a 4-sided projector mounted in a room so that you can project a 3d environment to multiple walls and give you the feeling of being inside. 3D glasses like those used in movies today are light enough to help with the 3D effects too. but VRML wasn't just for VR. we are playing 3D games without VR for quite some time now, and there is no reason we couldn't use VRML or X3D today to create interesting experiences. in the end it comes down to how easy it is to create and distribute the content. what we need is another drive into browser support where we can embed a 3D object easily, and then maybe it will catch on.

singularity2001 4y ago

>> people want to reinvent it. Maybe with good reason: If it didn't take off last time maybe there are hidden stumbling block in the specification. Trying fresh might unconsciously bring the right ingredients this time. There is the faint possibility that specification and implementations were correct, just too far ahead of its time and infrastructure; it's usually worth taking this risk though. And of cause reinventing means owning and deeply understanding.

outside1234 4y ago
And they can't admit that the specification was fine - don't that would force them to effectively admit that there is a very small audience for this.
- andybak 4y ago
  A little overwrought... "3d in a browser" sounds like a fairly broad use case. Three.js is fairly popular I hear.
croes 4y ago
Maybe because the hardware wasn't ready. Starting fresh could easily be the reason it's failing again because much time is wasted in reinventing the wheel. The problem is still the use case not the tooling.
- bb88 4y ago
  One problem is that no format would solve the "who's in the room with you problem". You still need some kind of backend for that. You could see a future though where you go into one portal and you're in Minecraft, and you go into another and you're playing tennis with your buddy in Europe. Games would just be new portals -- the key here is that it's hosted by different companies, not Meta.
mathgladiator 4y ago
Part of the problem was that I couldn't even get people to dig into the specification. I came away with the distinct impression that people really don't want to admit that XML is good enough.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

I'm guessing that since this is a text-based markup language, a lot of people wanted a format that had a lot less friction in a compute-constrained mobile environment, preferably something that can be piped straight to a GPU. HTML is fine for the browser because it is mostly delivering text and JS, which are both processed in a CPU. Text files are inherently GPU-hostile, and that makes them a weird choice for a graphical markup language.

rbanffy 4y ago
> Text files are inherently GPU-hostile, and that makes them a weird choice for a graphical markup language. The point of a standard is to be device agnostic. Tying it to present-day technical implementations would limit its adaptability to future tools, as well as creative misuse of the technology.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Then why tie the format to present-day technical tools like text editors? Why not invest in a format that makes sense and the tools to understand and work with it? Also, GPUs and their architecture aren't a fad, they have been the same for the last 30 years. If you want your format to be truly device agnostic, text is a bad format because it precludes many types of devices (GPUs and hardware accelerators) from being able to use it.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Text had been then same for the past 5000 years or so, predating text editors by an enormous margin.
ianai 4y ago
How are text files gpu hostile?
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Text files are very hard to efficiently parse in parallel because there are so many variable-length and conditionally present fields. That necessarily leads to branches in your code which GPUs are not designed for.

smrtinsert 4y ago

Reuse requires reading. I always figured Meta for a wheel reinventor. I always ignore their reach outs.