3 ms·
If anyone wants to tinker with the Babylon.js code for the 3D visualizations, I made a standalone, sandbox-like repo, which is much easier to set up: https://g
by folli 2y ago
If anyone wants to tinker with the Babylon.js code for the 3D visualizations, I made a standalone, sandbox-like repo, which is much easier to set up:
https://github.com/r-follador/CubeTrek_Babylon https://github.com/r-follador/CubeTrek_Babylon
- esperent 2y agoI work in the web 3d space, but unfortunately I know nothing about working with Babylon.js. What made you choose this engine? Did you evaluate cesium.js or three.js? Three.js would get you probably a couple of orders of magnitude more potential contributors, while cesium.js is designed for exactly this kind of project - at least that's my understanding, I haven't personally used it either. EDIT: btw this sounds like a complaint but I didn't mean it that way. You might have really good reasons for your choice and I'm curious to hear them if you're willing to share.
- folli 2y agoAll good, it's a valid question. I'm actually using cesium.js for the replay mode (https://cubetrek.com/replay/6638 https://cubetrek.com/replay/6638) using Google Earth data. For the 3D mode I was evaluating both Three.js and Babylon.js, and back when I started Babylon.js seemed a bit more exciting as I could set everything up a bit faster, so it was not an objective choice. But perhaps it was the wrong decision in hindsight...
- esperent 2y agoThanks for your reply. > But perhaps it was the wrong decision in hindsight Well, it's hard to say. Babylon.js is funded by Microsoft and there's some good things that come from that. Better docs, more of a batteries included approach. I'd say it's far from a totally wrong choice anyway.