CompuServe Messages

John, >>…You could also merely standardize the way the concept of polygon should be represented in DXF. Believe it or not, there is little agreement about this, which explains why DXF is a poor or at least unreliable method of moving 3D data between programs.<< After giving this some further thought, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with other folks here, that it's time the DXF format went the way of the Dodo. Send it packing. Put it out to pasture. Retire it. I just don't think it's up to handling the complex new features that I and other 3rd party devs will be looking for in a good exchange standard. And there's already so much DXF stuff out in the public domain that compatibility problems will probably just worsten. Undoubtedly many devs will want to continue supporting it just for loading models. And that's fine. But a different format with clearcut specs is needed for the next generation of 3D utilities coming down the pike, one which is freely licenseable, and fairly easy to implement, like you said. Right now I'd put my money on 3DMF, or OpenInventor/VRML. RIB looks like a dead-end because of the lack of downward compatibility. OBJ doesn't have much more going for it than DXF, except that there are less variations, I quess. >>Believe it or not, I've even heard from some CEOs who balk at supporting any other file format. They regard their 3D program as the best, and they regard support for other company's formats as "aid to the enemy." They regard universal file formats as a way to make it easy for customers to flee their 3D program and purchase other 3D programs.<< This is extremely narrow-minded, and I'd be glad to see such CEO's go the way of DXF, and the Dodo as well. In any case, if a good standard emerges, pressure from users should turn this around. -Tim