CompuServe Messages

>> 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. Well what is this new standard for if not for data exchange which means converting. Since all the available 3D programs handle the object data different (more or lass) it wouldn't be much of use if this universal standard would support all kinds of features and options. The data probably just won't be available for the program that is trying to read it since it just don't have this kind of data in it's own format or handles it different. Looking closer at this there are only very few things left that are common in most (not all!) programs: points, triangles (polys) groups (layers), hierarchy, and maybe color (not attribs), light & camera position. High end programs almost exclusivly work with splines so a polygon standard would be only for the low/mid end market. just my thoughts… -David