CompuServe Messages

>> You really made me think about how good this would actually be. If there ever was a standard file format it would have to be updated constantly. Every time a company created a new effect like bones. Also with bones there are several ways it is implemented in each program. Which would be used for the standard? Also, regarding the article in CGW, if each company only worked on new things instead of what others already do you would have to buy just about every program that comes out to get all the tools. Until I read your reply I only thought about the positive things about this, but there are numerous negative things too. I do think that the dxf format should be replaced with one more suited for animation programs like 3ds or any of the others out there.<< Sam, I remember you brought this subject up some time ago, and it looks now as though the idea of a 3D standard is gaining more momentum. I understand your concerns. I think John might be focusing a little too much on the current difficulties in translations, many of which could be addressed in a good standard. A 3D standard does not have to be all-encompassing to be effective for the vast majority of 3D users, nor does it have to limit the _internal_ complexity or sophistication of a 3D program. Yes, a standard will likely mean some loss in functionality when going from one program to another. Certain program-specific features may be lost for the time being like algorithmic textures, bones, etc. But the meat and potatoes should be maintained. And over time, standards can be upgraded to gradually increase the scope of properties that are handled. But in my view, it is possible to design standards that would maintain an exceptable level of integrity for most 3D users. Adoption of a standard does not mean a developer has to make any compromises. It simply means that they agree to _also_ make it possible for their program to output files which have a modest level of compatibility with other 3D applications. I don't think this is asking too much of developers, but it may take some significant prodding from users. Furthermore, standards can be developed that are both backward and forward compatible, so 3D programs wouldn't have to be continually updated just because the standard is.