[vos-d] A3dl redesign (was Re: Scaling and Origins -- 0.23 vs 0.24)

[chris]

All good points IMHO, it would make it easier to import/export/translate
between formats,

chris

On 22/05/07, Ken Taylor <taylork at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Peter Amstutz wrote:
> > Since most of the work has gone into the network layer, a lot of stuff
> > in the 3D layer was a quick proof of concept rather than being really
> > well thought out.  Even if s4 -> s5 transition wasn't necessary, an A3DL
> > redesign was already on the plan.
>
> There's a lot of unwritten stuff like this for a newbie to the VOS project
> like me :)  But it's good to know. I didn't really know how set you guys
> were on the current state of a3dl, but how much it seemed like "make it
> work
> easily in CS" was the main design objective made me a bit uncomfortable
> with
> it. But knowing that it was mostly a proof of concept and that a redesign
> is
> on the plan makes me feel a bit better.
>
> So, I don't know if it's too early to start talking about redesigning
> a3dl,
> but thinking about it today I had a thought. You guys already want to have
> VRML (and eventually X3D) translation to and from VOS/Interreality 3d
> data.
> Well, why not make it easier by desigining a3dl to be as close to 1:1 with
> X3D as possible? The X3D guys are putting a lot of work into hashing out
> the
> things that an interoperable 3d standard needs, so why re-invent the
> various
> wheels? I'm not talking about adopting X3D file formats as the interchange
> format of course, but rather having the object types and properties have a
> 1:1 correspondance with those in an X3D scenegraph, and have the formats
> for
> textures and meshes and shaders and such be X3D compatible.
>
> Of course, it doesn't have to implement *all* of X3D, and will have its
> own
> extensions on top of what X3D specifies (I'm thinking something like
> inter-server portals would probably be very vos-specific). But it might be
> a
> good idea to ride on top of their basic design. Also, doesn't X3D specify
> different optional modules and levels of compliance? You could have that
> kind of information published by servers and clients, even, to help with
> service discovery. But I actually don't know too much about X3D at the
> moment -- learning it is on my ever-expanding todo list :)
>
> There will probably be some extra work in making crystal space loaders for
> a3dl if it's done this way, but it's probably better for the VOS standard
> in
> the long run.
>
> Of course, if there's some reason you guys don't want to do an
> X3D-inspired
> design and think it'd be better to start from scratch with the 3d scene
> data
> I would be really interested in your opinions. Does X3D have any serious
> flaws that would hold it back from being the "right" data model for
> Interreality 3D?
>
> -Ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vos-d mailing list
> vos-d at interreality.org
> http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
>



-- 
http://ping.com.au
http://systemic.com.au
http://planet-earth.org/Rez/RezIndex.html
--
It be a great secret: there be more truth at the centre.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.interreality.org/pipermail/vos-d/attachments/20070522/b2abd8ba/attachment.htm