CompuServe Messages

All, There seems to be a growing consensus that a standard system of file exchange is needed for 3D applications. 3D artists/designers/animators/developers are becoming increasing frustrated by the difficulties moving files around to different applications. There's an excellent article in the April issue of CGW called “Untamed Animation'' which nicely encapsulates this. USER BENEFITS From a users standpoint, a critical benefit to a 3D standard is that it would allow you to use the best tool for each job in your work, whether it be a spline modeler, 3D paint system, rendering engine, and easily transport the files from one to another. And it would speed up the availability of new tools, because 3D vendors would no longer have to waste time duplicating the entire architecture of a 3D program, and instead be able to focus on one specific element. And perhaps best of all, it could mean LOWER PRICES(!!), because developers would be able to spread their products among a wider user base. (3DS users upset with the rising cost of IPAS's take note.) DEVELOPER BENEFITS From a developers standpoint, it would mean that only one version of a product would be necessary to develop and support for the entire 3D market. This in turn would speed up the pace of new offerings for 3D users. For example, If Crestline (my company) only had to produce one model/animation format, the time we spend now porting and supporting our models for 3 different file formats (LW, 3DS, IM) could all be dedicated to NEW projects, dramatically speeding up the pace of our development, and availability of new tools to virtually ALL 3D users. I frequently get calls from TrueSpace users, MAC users with StrataStudioPro or Inifini-D, and Topaz users asking if they can use our software, Humanoid and KineModelz. And I usually have to tell them that we can't offer the models in other formats they can use, because there's no standard system for hierarchies, morph targets, bones, etc. Crestline would love to be able to provide all these users with models native to their programs, but the reality is that there just aren't enough hours in the day to manage this. A smarter standard of file exchange would make these problems obsolete, and open our products for use by virtually any 3D program. One of my biggest beefs with the PLUG-IN concept being promoted by Autodesk and New Tek right now is that it CLOSES applications off from more 3D users than it OPENS them to. I'm sure users of programs like Imagine, TrueSpace, Topaz, and LW would love to have access to 3D Paint programs, metaball modelers, optimization routines, and other IPAS's. But they can't right now because they're all plugged into 3D Studio, and thus unusable by others. If these applications were developed as standalones with a standard system of file exchange, they could be employed by a much wider 3D user base, making their developers alot more dough, and many users alot more happy in the process. DXF DXF has become the de facto standard for 3D objects today. This may have been a suitable standard for CAD applications, but for 3D rendering, animation, and effects, many consider it to be woefully inadequate, not least because its so cumbersome in size, but also because it lacks support for textures, grouping, hierarchical links, pivot points, motion, and other necessities of 3D scenes like lighting, cameras and FX. KEYSTONE AND QUICKDRAW 3D It appears that Apple and SGI have come up with their own approach to this problem in the form of QuickDraw 3D and Keystone respectively, two new standards which are being worked out to allow easy translation of entire 3D scenes from one application to another. Their goal is to make 3D clip art as ubiquitous as 2D image formats like TARGA are now. My suspicion is that QuickDraw will focus more on static scenes, for publishing since MAC is such a strong niche for that industry. But I don't know enough about either QuickDraw or Keystone to assess their true benefits to most 3D artists and animators. OPENGL Right now for the PC, it appears that the best hope for standards will be in MicroSoft's support for OpenGL (which comes from the SGI), or some kind of API like Reality Lab as a common ground for interface design. Again, I don't fully understand how these technologies bear on the issue of interoperability, and file exchange and I'd welcome comments from others who know more. QUESTIONS I'm not an expert on these things by any stretch, so I'd like to hear others' views on all aspects these issues. In addition, I have a few specific questions of my own. Will OpenGL solve these problems for the PC? If so, how? What is OpenGL, and how does it work? Does OpenGL include a 3D file standard, or is it geared more toward interface design? Could QuickDraw or Keystone be adopted by the PC, and if so how effective would it be as a 3D standard? Are other users as frustrated as I am by the difficulty in importing and exporting files from one 3D program or another? Who should be the one to decide the 3D standards? Users, developers or companies like Microsoft, MAC and Silicon Graphics? Are average 3D users opinions on these issues important? (I certainly think they are, but I wonder if companies like MicrosSoft, who are calling the shots, would agree.) In other words, should standards be set from the top-down or bottom-up? Can the PC stay competitive with MAC and SGI 3D, if they adopt such standards and PC users/devs do not? -Tim