best language for 3D manipulation over web ?

[Bart Kowalski]

> > Did the OP mention anything about Windows? Then why the heck are you
suggesting
> > an extremely platform-dependent solution based on specific technologies from
a
> > specific vendor?
>
> That's what was surprising me as well. I wonder why nobody seems to know
> Java3D, although it's not a new Java extension. Despite great platform support
> (please read my other posts), it's easy to use (a high level 3D language).
>
> E.g.: I have a Quake3 Java model editor that uses Java3D.
> You only need to download a plugin, which will store a few extra files into
> your JVM directory, as well as a JAR file with the classes...that's all. As
> long as your PC has OpenGL support (or in case of Windows, both OpenGL and
> Direct3D is supported...whereby OpenGL looks better and is faster) nothing
> speaks against good looking 3D graphic in Java.
>
> But most people prefer to use poor company solutions over open standards. Most
> games use DirectX instead of OpenGL (if they'd use OpenGL, porting them to
> other platforms would be a lot easier).
>
> Instead of getting browser companies to finally implement CSS2 (which can be
> used together with JavaScript to make incredible text and graphic animations),
> they rather force everyone to download a plugin for Flash.
>
> Instead of implementing a full VRML2 support, they will force people to
> download a plugin for Shockwave3D. Instead of using PNG (open standard), they
> use GIF. The list is endless ...
>
> People always use the first solution they can find, which is usually the one
> most propagated. Those are usually commercial solutions, as companies earn
> money by propagating them (meaning they make a lot of advertising for their
> standard ... something that isn't done enough for open standards). That this
> solution may not be the best that exists (there are often a lot better
> solutions), that this solution belongs to a single company (and thus only they
> have the power to alter or improve it and only they can write viewers for
their
> standard) and that this solution might be limited to the platform you are
using
> at the moment is simply ignored.
>
> I mean, how many webpages are there that say "You NEED IE 5.5 to watch this
> page"? Too many. The fact that this means 50% (or more) of all surfers will
> simply skip this page is a risk they are willing to take.

More, actually. By doing such stupid things they are completely ignoring all of
the Unix world and technologies far superior to anything that Windows users
could ever dream of using. It's amazing how some people are so easily influenced
by commercial propaganda.


Bart.