PDA

View Full Version : Google puts 3D in your browser



adamredwoods
04-22-2009, 03:23 PM
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/

The demo is incredible, but is this for real?
Is this the next Flash?

Hopper
04-22-2009, 03:40 PM
Fascinating stuff. I might play a little bit with it this weekend if I get a chance. If it works how I think it does, I actually have a good business use to apply this to.

OnlineRender
04-22-2009, 03:40 PM
TIP: learn it !

looks good cheers for linky :)

Join the O3D developer groups to provide feedback : http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/groups.html

Edit no lightwave obj pluggin :(

3D pong reminds me of shuffle puck cafe ,ahh gone are the days

calilifestyle
04-22-2009, 04:10 PM
Yet another attempt to add 3d in browsers. i guess we'll see how far this will go. I still miss shockwave 3d.

IMI
04-22-2009, 04:13 PM
I really don't want 3D in my browser. Don't we all spend way too much time looking at 3D anyway as it is? ;)

Looking, analyzing...eating, sleeping, breathing...

Nah, I'm pretty happy with the browser in 2D, if nothing else. :D

COBRASoft
04-22-2009, 05:56 PM
That's pretty amazing stuff! What will MS have in response to this? SilverLight 3D? :D

Silkrooster
04-22-2009, 10:03 PM
Flash was slowly heading towards 3d maybe this will put a fire under their butts.

SplineGod
04-22-2009, 10:09 PM
Another opportunity to create content :)

Dexter2999
04-22-2009, 10:47 PM
flash and 3d can be fun for the internet sometimes useful but when mostly when I am doing research or work it really gets inthe way.

Nothing quite as frustrating as being behind a corporate firewall with no admin privledges and not be able to get a menu to work or see content because the flash or quicktime plug ins are out of date or restricted altogether.

Even had this issue trying to get to the registration info at Newtek because they don't have an HTML option. I sent a message requesting they adopt an HTML option and was told that "flash is a necessary part of todays advertising" (to paraphrase).

When Flash was starting out people used to always have an HTML option because they took dial up connections into account and HTML is faster. Unfortunately dial up isn't the only obstacle in the world.

The toys are nice but a little common sense would be nice as well.

Silkrooster
04-23-2009, 12:54 AM
Another opportunity to create content :)

I agree, its amazing how many I have run across that are in the business of graphical design and despise a graphical web experience. And I am not talking just flash based either, I mean plain ordinary images with html.
The thing is in this day in age, dialup has to go, it will be the only way to drive the prices of broad band down further yet. Don't get me wrong, I know there are places that just can not get it yet.
As far as Dexter's comment about companies not installing flash, I just don't see the security issue. But I do know it can be hard to convince people especially corporate head honchos to see the future.

Otterman
04-23-2009, 01:52 AM
Didnt shockwave do this....well over 10 years ago!

walfridson
04-23-2009, 03:47 AM
Very nice, and it's free!

zapper1998
04-23-2009, 04:08 AM
cool........

bjornkn
04-23-2009, 04:54 AM
Yes, very cool indeed!
Doesn't work in Opera though :( ?

And I miss VRML, which did similar stuff 15 years ago ;)

Sekhar
04-23-2009, 09:12 AM
Didnt shockwave do this....well over 10 years ago!

Yeah, as did a bunch of others (VRML, X3D, etc.), not to mention Unity3D, the pro stuff that does an amazing job at this. Any idea why so many 3D apps/standards have failed and Adobe refuses (at least so far) to blend Shockwave or their Acrobat/X3D stuff into Flash? I wonder if there's a business reason, that 3D on the web simply doesn't fly except for things like online games.

It could be that network speeds and processing power (CPU and now GPU) simply wern't there till now. Or that 3D was too complicated to build (O3D is supposed to be a higher level API, so should help). Or just that a 3D interface is just too cheesy for any serious business use. Makes great demos, but simply won't work for actual use. Like every editing/effects program will demo a million cool transitions, but all we end up using in real life are cuts and dissolves. :)

adamredwoods
04-23-2009, 11:40 AM
Adobe has kept 3D out of Flash in order to keep the overhead to a minimal. This is the a good idea since Adobe is known for its bloat.

I've seen more and more Papervision3D stuff out there. Way cool, too. Innovative interfaces and such.

This being one of them:
http://www.pearljamtengame.com/

3D is the best for gaming, and with casual gaming on the rise (women are a huge market here) 3D is going to become a bigger player, as it will expand into bigger not-so-casual gaming for the male market.

Sekhar
04-23-2009, 12:23 PM
Adobe has kept 3D out of Flash in order to keep the overhead to a minimal. This is the a good idea since Adobe is known for its bloat.

I doubt it, because Adobe isn't pushing Shockwave separately either - despite having such a big head start. When was the last time you saw any PR or ad on Shockwave as a player in all this? And it has plans to include the Flex framework as part of the Flash player pretty soon, and if anything that adds way more bloat than Shockwave.

IMO Adobe simply doesn't see much revenue potential from web 3D at this time, and that's my point. They've been pushing 3D in Acrobat because there's a lot of $ in it (from CAD stuff, mainly). For the web, I think they're watching to see how things go. If 3D takes off on the browser, IMO they'll pull some from Shockwave on the inside and build on whichever API wins (looks like PV3D) on the outside, along with a tab library of course.

Titus
04-23-2009, 01:13 PM
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/

The demo is incredible, but is this for real?
Is this the next Flash?

Been there, done that, not anymore.

rakker16mm
04-23-2009, 01:54 PM
I think it's very cool. I've never been that crazy about web design but this could open things up in really interesting ways... And did someone say it was free?

Silkrooster
04-23-2009, 06:43 PM
I thought it was stupid for Adobe to come out with flex when they have Director. Everything flex does should have been embedded into Director. But its one more product they can sell and also one more product to maintain.
Yeah I don't think they are pushing director/shockwave hard enough. I wouldn't be surprised if shockwave gets embedded in to flash or pdf.

steamthunk
04-24-2009, 02:28 PM
And it has plans to include the Flex framework as part of the Flash player pretty soon, and if anything that adds way more bloat than Shockwave.

Plans? Flex compiles down to swf. It's been this way since at least Flash 9 when I got involved in Flex development. So whatever bits Adobe needed to add to the player to support Flex has already long been added.


I thought it was stupid for Adobe to come out with flex when they have Director. Everything flex does should have been embedded into Director.

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I've seen Director. However, I'll hazard that they don't address the same markets. Flex was a way for then Macromedia to get into the Rich Internet Application development market and compete with the C#/ASP .NET, JAVA, PHP/AJAX stacks for lucrative web development dollars/mindshare. Developing with Flex and with Flash/Director are very different activities and aimed at different users in my book.

The former is a programming perspective and the latter more from a creative perspective. Prior to Flex it was really painful to program large scale RIAs with Flash and not have the code base be utterly unmaintainable. Flex helps this a lot as a modern programming framework that let's you do development outside the Flash IDE and it's animation and timeline based metaphor. However, the great push towards Flex has short changed Flash and creatives a bit in my mind in that they've swung way over into the programming end of the spectrum in it's product support.

Sekhar
04-24-2009, 03:21 PM
Plans? Flex compiles down to swf. It's been this way since at least Flash 9 when I got involved in Flex development. So whatever bits Adobe needed to add to the player to support Flex has already long been added.

Looks like you didn't get what I said. Each Flex app uses what's called the "Flex framework," which is a library of ActionScript classes. What happens today is that when the Flex compiler prepares the SWF, it includes the necessary framework classes within the SWF. And that makes them pretty bulky - and many of these classes are duplicated in each Flex app.

What Adobe is planning to do is include the Flex framework inside the Flash player so that you won't need to include them anymore in the Flex apps and browsers don't need to download them over and over again. If you have many Flex apps, you can do a similar thing today by using RSLs (Runtime Shared Libraries), but the user will still have to download the RSL the first time. With the framework inside the player, you won't need to at all.

This is huge for Flex apps and will obviously make the them MUCH smaller, with faster downloads, but will make the player bulky - that was my point.

Silkrooster
04-24-2009, 06:03 PM
After I wrote that post. I got thinking that maybe they plan on phasing out Director down the road. It just seams like they prefer the flash/flex. But thats just my opinion and have no facts to support it.