3 ms·
No. It's pure 'not invented here.' If your 3d format can do NURBS it can do anything.
by ok123456 5y ago
No. It's pure 'not invented here.' If your 3d format can do NURBS it can do anything.
- dotancohen 5y ago> If your 3d format can do NURBS it can do anything. If your 3d format can do NURBS, it can theoretically given unlimited CPU and memory _display_ anything. But that doesn't mean that it can communicate with other devices over the network with low latency. Or can effectively transmit new objects - or people - in your vicinity over the network fast enough to interact with them - especially if arbitrary detail is important, think about a doctor looking into a patient's ear. Or represent moods, emotions, feelings, etc., or even sounds. We don't even know if smells or tastes are next!
- iostream24 5y agoThe 3D format is not responsible for those items. If my proximity to an object triggers things it’s really no different than passing a call to another layer. Think web resources and hyperlink agnosticism
- ddingus 5y agoThe common piece I see being talked around here is ownership. I bet that, more than anything else, is what drives the pushback. I was there too. People do not want open 3D, because "land grab", next really big, big thing. "If only WWW would have charged to make a link...."
- ok123456 5y agoPeople have been floating the idea of 'micro-transactions' since the first days of the commercial world-wide-web. People just don't want to do it. There's a reason why average users made the choice to use the wider internet, instead of things like Minitel.
- ddingus 5y agoTotally! But that won't stop developers and founders from doing gatekeeping management math.
- ok123456 5y agoSounds like a solution in search of a problem. But, you're free to add your own extensions on to x3d, if you want to give each part of your sub-assembly a "mood" or "taste" and still have your artifacts be interoperable with the rest of the world.