CompuServe Messages

John, Thanks for filling in some of the pieces. I talked with Bill Allen at 3D Artist and he helped to clarify a few more things. >> it's the whole context of software and hardware support which will determine which formats become most prevalent.<< Agreed, however, one of my questions is whether it would be worth while to start a more grass roots approach to developing a new 3D exchange standard, through some user advocacy group like the 3D Art Forum, or simply wait to see what the major players in the 3D market come up with. From what I can see at this point, a couple important issues could determine the fate of the commercial formats and their future popularity. For example, if VRML is adopted as the standard format for the World Wide Web VR interface, this could make it a very prominent and popular format. And of course whatever MicroSoft decides to do could have a pervasive impact. But so far they apparently haven't made a definitive move towards one standard. It appears they could go in several directions. As you said, VRML is an offshoot of OpenGL. If VRML works independent of OpenGL this might be a possibility, but exchange formats that would _require_ OpenGL look doomed for the PC at this point because OpenGL's hardware requirements are too extreme. MicroSoft still has several other directions it could go. They could promote a new format based on SoftImage, Reality Lab, or its possible they might be content to pick up on the MAC's 3D Metafile format from Quickdraw3D if it proves popular. Bill Allen indicated that MicroSoft is trying to come up with a standard for motion files and this might be part of what's causing them to delay committing to a standard. Keystone (SGI's other direction) appears so nebulous at this point that it's probably not worth discussing. Do you think VRML could be used with systems or programs without OpenGL? If 3DMF supported motion do you think it would make a suitable standard for Macromedia, and other 3D devs/users, for that matter? My suspicion is that all these formats will garner a certain following, and we'll end up having to convert between them all. But at this point 3DMF looks like it's got a head start on all the rest. If RIB is such a good standard I don't see why it isn't given more consideration. The only thing I can figure is that others devs of rendering engines didn't want to give any support to their competition, RenderMan. >>Have you read that recent article on the componentization of 3D software… think it was in the latest CGW.<< Yes, “Untamed Animation'' in the April CGW was part of the genesis of this discussion. The article mentions the problems and proposed `solutions' to interoperability, but its explanation of how these new standards work was too watered down to be useful. I suspect CGW is cautious about showing a bias towards any of these. -Tim