On Friday 23 January 2004 21:39, Erik Hofman wrote: > Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > I wonder if this is intended to be a better vrml? Although it's not > > clear that the authors of xgl are aware of vrml ... > > > > The thing about 3d file formats is that there's never one that does > > exactly everything you need. So you might as well start a new format > > and toss it into the mix. :-) > > At least it's an open standard, something which can't be said about vrml > II. And it uses XML for what XML is best at, storing (large amounts of) > data. > > Erik
An open standard is a good idea but when it comes to looking at new 3d model formts I think we ought to be thinking about what features it can cope with - for example, the ability to use multiple textures per surface/object would add a lot of versitility. While we may not be able to actually impliment multiple textures right now, we ought to allow for them in any standard we decide to use. I think an open and extensible standard would be ideal. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
