3 ms·
It's absolutely not. The math behind rendering is pretty straightforward and has been available since forever (Graphics Gems). On top of that, three.js was sor
by zeroq 2y ago
It's absolutely not.
The math behind rendering is pretty straightforward and has been available since forever (Graphics Gems). On top of that, three.js was sort of a port of an existing library called away3D, which was a port of papervision, but that's another story.
- winrid 2y agoLooks like you can find papervision source here: https://github.com/Papervision3D/Papervision3D https://github.com/Papervision3D/Papervision3D
- mrdoob 2y agoDefinitely not a port of Away3D or Papervision3D.
- bsenftner 2y agoPeople have no idea how much effort you put in, bless their innocent little hearts.
- zeroq 2y agoThanks for the kind word.
- zeroq 2y agoHey doob! I remember you from the good ol flash times. I didn't wanted to downplay your effort you put into threejs. <3 My point was that you don't have to have a PhD to write a 3D engine, the math is here, there's a plenty of literature, reference and libraries at hand that anyone can make their own toy 3D rendered on a weekend. ... to make that work in the browserland, that's whole another story. :) I remember writing a tiny deeplinking "library", back in 2006. When I finished implementing the specification it had ~30 lines of code. At the time it was compatible with all common browsers it got to about 500. :)