141–150 of 241 posts
Isn't model loading/viewing supported by webXR? currently it seems webXR requires a lot of boilerplate to get it to work, it would be nice to have a simpler way to setup a 3d scene , and html tags should follow.
Also , limiting the functionality to 3d models seems odd, how about 360 panoramas, and what about animation?
My initial reaction to this was "just use WebGL", but they've made a pretty compelling case as to why that's not ideal: > Consider a browser or web-view being displayed in Augmented Reality. The developer wants to show a 3D model in the page. In order for the model to look accurate, it must be rendered from the viewpoint of the user - otherwise it is a flat rendering of a three-dimensional image with incorrect perspe…
> Consider a browser or web-view being displayed in Augmented Reality Feels like Apple is working on something that needs this.
I don't understand why a 3D geometry model would best be called simply "model" in the context of HTML. The term "model" is a pretty generic term that's very relevant to HTML, already used heavily in Web frameworks, etc.
My initial reaction to this was "just use WebGL", but they've made a pretty compelling case as to why that's not ideal: > Consider a browser or web-view being displayed in Augmented Reality. The developer wants to show a 3D model in the page. In order for the model to look accurate, it must be rendered from the viewpoint of the user - otherwise it is a flat rendering of a three-dimensional image with incorrect perspe…
I don't understand why passing a new view matrix to webGL is such a security risk or why that needs to be shared with he site owner. I also think a window with a dynamic view matrix would make more sense in certain cases. Some techniques work when rendered to a surface that would not work in VR, ie screen space effects.
But I’m not sure the proposed tag is a good idea either. I have not used VR but I think it might be a good thing if web browsers in VR stay flat and can’t take over the space in front or behind them?
WebGL exists, why do we need a budget restricted version of a model viewer in the browser? None of the motivations are at all convincing. Should browsers now be obliged to integrate with VR headsets?
Based on the comments so far, I think I'm in the minority who think this would be a good feature for the web. This proposal might not be perfect, but I think the idea is great. There's lots of good reasons to semantically want to embed a 3d model in a page, like any other type of media. Say you're writing a course explaining how differential gears work - a 3d model of that could be really handy to look at to learn. A…
But then I thought, maybe they're niche because something like this doesn't already exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3D models are very variable: some are defined with just triangles, some include quads, some are NURBS or subdivision surfaces. Sometimes two sides per polygon are considered, sometimes just one. Ways of navigating a 3D model also vary wildly. Sometimes you just want to pivot/rotate them around a little, but sometimes "walking" inside them makes more sense. Then there are materials and lights, and here people go wild…
Seems like there's a reasonable parallel here with video content. Before native video, video was always in a flash player, and that was good enough for a lot of people— it was proprietary of course, and it it required a plugin. But it worked. Now with native video, there are still precious few instances where it's just the browser's native video widget. In basically all serious commercial scenarios, there's at least…
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/desktop/wpf/graphics...