5 ms·

Sad to see it go, but I perfectly understand. You may or may not remember, but we had a chat about some of the backing tech about 5 years ago. I am one of the f

Sad to see it go, but I perfectly understand. You may or may not remember, but we had a chat about some of the backing tech about 5 years ago. I am one of the founders of 3dc.io and we are shutting it down for similar reasons. Ironically our tech stack behind both products is pretty identical.

bhouston 4y ago
Yeah unfortunately nearly every company that tried to be a general web based 3D editor failed to find a market. There is a new generation now out so it will be interesting to see how that goes: womp, spline.design and I guess vectary is still around. I think there is another recent one as well but I can’t remember the name. I think the AI driven tools is the next hot area personally. I think Blender is the real 3D editor that won over the last decade.
- sandkoan 4y ago
  Is there a particular reason that web-based 3d editors failed to find a market? Is it just that those working in the modelling space are already well-versed in actual editing tools, so they don't really have a need for something like this, while the average nontechnical/nonspecialist consumer has little reason to edit 3d? Because Figma seems to have taken off despite having largely a similar model. Would a collaborative version of the 3d editor concept be more of a success?
  - bhouston 4y ago
    One major limitation is memory. The browser only gives you about 1gb of memory to play with. But blender lets you play with as much as you have on your device. As well multithreading is limited or very difficult in the browser. On desktop it is a lot more flexible. Also we are competing now with Blender which is fast moving and free. Blender is now a seriously alternative to 3Ds max and Maya. A web based editor is at many disadvantages. Figma isn’t competing with an effective open source tool. Also its resource requirements are much lower so it isn’t limited. Its market is also larger. Not saying it is impossible to compete but it isn’t simple. Even if you are feature competitive, which is hard, you are likely slower and more resource constrained and also how can you charge much if Blender is free? Paying for an inferior experience? That is a hard sell.
    - brutus1213 4y ago
      Good points. One way to compete with blender could be simplicity. I want to encourage myself and my wife+7 year old to get into 3 D modeling (basic level stuff so we have fun with it in VR/AR or maybe print out models). It all seems a bit inaccessible without some serious effort. When there are too many features, taking some out + not having to do an install is compelling.
      - bhouston 4y ago
        A simple product though won't likely be used commercially by professionals, and then you are stuck at the low end serving students/dabblers, which is not a place were you will make much money. Remember for software tools, it is usually only those who are making money using your tool who are willing to pay for it.
        touchpadder 4y ago
        Same issue in progress here! I've been working for a few years on an editor(forked from Three.js editor) for my browser game bad.city and now I'm separating the editor, rewrote it in react and the current goal is making an easy-to-start-with game level editor with many assumptions. We'll see how that goes
        kaveh808 4y ago
        We are developing an open source 3D system, and what could set it apart from existing tools such as Blender is an interesting question. In our case we are taking a different tack by developing in Common Lisp, which will give us a powerful REPL and whole-system extensibility. Though the web was a tempting platform, we are keeping it as a desktop app for now. Based on the comments I read here that may have been a wise decision. We shall see if there is a niche for a system such as ours. A brief trailer: https://youtu.be/i0CwhEDAXB0 https://youtu.be/i0CwhEDAXB0
- tamat 4y ago
  WebGLStudio creator here, yup, there is no market for generic 3D solutions. You need to find a very specific niche to have some revenue.
- eerikkivistik 4y ago
  For not fully featured 3D editors (which takes so much work, I won't even get started), I think the trick would be to bundle it with something that uses the output and that part generates the revenue. Roblox is a great example of that.
  - Wingy 4y ago
    Most "real" modeling work on Roblox is done in Blender, exported to fbx, and imported to Roblox Studio. Complex models are typically not built in Studio.
  - astlouis44 4y ago
    Are you talking about a platform/portal where the published 3D web content (games, simulations, virtual events) can be discovered and accessed by users?
    - eerikkivistik 4y ago
      I was more referring to having a second product, that leverages the first one. So for example, if you have a simple 3D editor that doesn't compete in features with high-end 3D editors. What you could do, is have a game, where amateur 3d users can use that tool to build content for their own world. That is why I mentioned Roblox as an example.
      - kaveh808 4y ago
        The solution might be to develop a niche modeling solution with appropriately high level tools for your domain, as opposed to a general polygon modeler.

bhouston 4y ago

Yeah unfortunately nearly every company that tried to be a general web based 3D editor failed to find a market. There is a new generation now out so it will be interesting to see how that goes: womp, spline.design and I guess vectary is still around. I think there is another recent one as well but I can’t remember the name. I think the AI driven tools is the next hot area personally. I think Blender is the real 3D editor that won over the last decade.

sandkoan 4y ago
Is there a particular reason that web-based 3d editors failed to find a market? Is it just that those working in the modelling space are already well-versed in actual editing tools, so they don't really have a need for something like this, while the average nontechnical/nonspecialist consumer has little reason to edit 3d? Because Figma seems to have taken off despite having largely a similar model. Would a collaborative version of the 3d editor concept be more of a success?
- bhouston 4y ago
  One major limitation is memory. The browser only gives you about 1gb of memory to play with. But blender lets you play with as much as you have on your device. As well multithreading is limited or very difficult in the browser. On desktop it is a lot more flexible. Also we are competing now with Blender which is fast moving and free. Blender is now a seriously alternative to 3Ds max and Maya. A web based editor is at many disadvantages. Figma isn’t competing with an effective open source tool. Also its resource requirements are much lower so it isn’t limited. Its market is also larger. Not saying it is impossible to compete but it isn’t simple. Even if you are feature competitive, which is hard, you are likely slower and more resource constrained and also how can you charge much if Blender is free? Paying for an inferior experience? That is a hard sell.
  - brutus1213 4y ago
    Good points. One way to compete with blender could be simplicity. I want to encourage myself and my wife+7 year old to get into 3 D modeling (basic level stuff so we have fun with it in VR/AR or maybe print out models). It all seems a bit inaccessible without some serious effort. When there are too many features, taking some out + not having to do an install is compelling.
    - bhouston 4y ago
      A simple product though won't likely be used commercially by professionals, and then you are stuck at the low end serving students/dabblers, which is not a place were you will make much money. Remember for software tools, it is usually only those who are making money using your tool who are willing to pay for it.
      - touchpadder 4y ago
        Same issue in progress here! I've been working for a few years on an editor(forked from Three.js editor) for my browser game bad.city and now I'm separating the editor, rewrote it in react and the current goal is making an easy-to-start-with game level editor with many assumptions. We'll see how that goes
      - kaveh808 4y ago
        We are developing an open source 3D system, and what could set it apart from existing tools such as Blender is an interesting question. In our case we are taking a different tack by developing in Common Lisp, which will give us a powerful REPL and whole-system extensibility. Though the web was a tempting platform, we are keeping it as a desktop app for now. Based on the comments I read here that may have been a wise decision. We shall see if there is a niche for a system such as ours. A brief trailer: https://youtu.be/i0CwhEDAXB0 https://youtu.be/i0CwhEDAXB0
tamat 4y ago
WebGLStudio creator here, yup, there is no market for generic 3D solutions. You need to find a very specific niche to have some revenue.
eerikkivistik 4y ago
For not fully featured 3D editors (which takes so much work, I won't even get started), I think the trick would be to bundle it with something that uses the output and that part generates the revenue. Roblox is a great example of that.
- Wingy 4y ago
  Most "real" modeling work on Roblox is done in Blender, exported to fbx, and imported to Roblox Studio. Complex models are typically not built in Studio.
- astlouis44 4y ago
  Are you talking about a platform/portal where the published 3D web content (games, simulations, virtual events) can be discovered and accessed by users?
  - eerikkivistik 4y ago
    I was more referring to having a second product, that leverages the first one. So for example, if you have a simple 3D editor that doesn't compete in features with high-end 3D editors. What you could do, is have a game, where amateur 3d users can use that tool to build content for their own world. That is why I mentioned Roblox as an example.
    - kaveh808 4y ago
      The solution might be to develop a niche modeling solution with appropriately high level tools for your domain, as opposed to a general polygon modeler.