9 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file open source data formats are more important than programs i

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront_.obj_file open source data formats are more important than programs initially, the above is for 3d models. "— namely, the position of each vertex, the UV position of each texture coordinate vertex, vertex normals, and the faces that make each polygon defined as a list of vertices, and texture vertices. " I'm sure there's one for the edge based models too. I can see an UrStandard developing, which while probably inefficient, can describe necessary attributes for all practical applications and export into the open standardised format for the field at hand. XML for objects in 3d space.

raverbashing 12y ago
The texture thing just solved the 3D drawing problem, not the FEA problem, or the machinist/CNC problem You don't care about vertexes when you're spinning things in a lathe
lmz 12y ago
Collada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLLADA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLLADA
brudgers 12y ago
The defacto standards for geometric data are driven by the dominate commercial software packages, e.g. ESRI's formats for geospatial information or AutoDesk's DXF for Orthogonal data [ and here I am lumping CAD and GIS under the scope of any universal standard ]. The issue with creating a standard is that to a first approximation every CAD or GIS program creates and operates on a unique set of meta-data...this is what gives each piece of software it's distinguishing features [ sure there are possible algorithmic efficiencies, but these are not an issue that a data interchange standard ought to treat as a primary concern ]. The wonderful thing about standards for 3d data is that there are so many to choose from. [1] There have been massive projects to create standards, and many of them have completed their work, only to see time march on. In AEC, the National Cad Standard was created in the 1980's [2]. It still locks the 3d description of designs to their 2d representation as drawings. The Army Corps of Engineers implements NCS. Their document is 450 pages [3]. To be comprehensible by humans, it is based on the idea: CAD levels or layers are analogous to overlays in manual drafting systems and serve to separate graphic elements (lines, shapes, and text) according to the design discipline they represent. Why, because unlike a computer program, the artifact it describes cannot be assumed to be directly manifested in meat-space without human involvement...e.g. buildings require construction crews and machine parts require someone pour raw material into the hopper and put finished goods on a truck, transport them, unload and install them for their next use...a design for a kitchen renovation doesn't compile into a new cabinet configuration. So the fundamental issue for developing creating a useful 3d data model is not a document, but a way of creating the data model that is attractive to people who create 3d data models. The prototype is JavaScript not ADA. [1] With perhaps disputed apologies to Grace Hopper. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#Disputed http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#Disputed [2] http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ncs6/about.php http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ncs6/about.php [3] http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Engineering/AECStandardR5.pdf http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Engineering/AE...

raverbashing 12y ago

The texture thing just solved the 3D drawing problem, not the FEA problem, or the machinist/CNC problem You don't care about vertexes when you're spinning things in a lathe

lmz 12y ago

Collada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLLADA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COLLADA

brudgers 12y ago

The defacto standards for geometric data are driven by the dominate commercial software packages, e.g. ESRI's formats for geospatial information or AutoDesk's DXF for Orthogonal data [ and here I am lumping CAD and GIS under the scope of any universal standard ]. The issue with creating a standard is that to a first approximation every CAD or GIS program creates and operates on a unique set of meta-data...this is what gives each piece of software it's distinguishing features [ sure there are possible algorithmic efficiencies, but these are not an issue that a data interchange standard ought to treat as a primary concern ]. The wonderful thing about standards for 3d data is that there are so many to choose from. [1] There have been massive projects to create standards, and many of them have completed their work, only to see time march on. In AEC, the National Cad Standard was created in the 1980's [2]. It still locks the 3d description of designs to their 2d representation as drawings. The Army Corps of Engineers implements NCS. Their document is 450 pages [3]. To be comprehensible by humans, it is based on the idea: CAD levels or layers are analogous to overlays in manual drafting systems and serve to separate graphic elements (lines, shapes, and text) according to the design discipline they represent. Why, because unlike a computer program, the artifact it describes cannot be assumed to be directly manifested in meat-space without human involvement...e.g. buildings require construction crews and machine parts require someone pour raw material into the hopper and put finished goods on a truck, transport them, unload and install them for their next use...a design for a kitchen renovation doesn't compile into a new cabinet configuration. So the fundamental issue for developing creating a useful 3d data model is not a document, but a way of creating the data model that is attractive to people who create 3d data models. The prototype is JavaScript not ADA. [1] With perhaps disputed apologies to Grace Hopper. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#Disputed http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper#Disputed [2] http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ncs6/about.php http://www.nationalcadstandard.org/ncs6/about.php [3] http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Engineering/AECStandardR5.pdf http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Engineering/AE...