由用户创建的信息 brettkromkamp
20 June 2017 19:25
Hi Alexander,
Well, that's a start :)
One of the reasons why I believe that comprehensive out-of-the-box AR support in B4W could be a good product development strategy (other than the obvious mega-trend that is AR) is that I have actively being searching for good web-based AR frameworks without much success. Both AR.js and AWE.js, although quite promising, are basically one-man shows: https://github.com/jeromeetienne/AR.js/graphs/contributors and https://github.com/awe-media/awe.js/graphs/contributors, respectively. Even Unity… when targeting the web, I don't think it is an attractive option. So, web-based AR is technically within reach (with cross-browser adoption of the necessary APIs, including WebRTC, media capture, etc); nonetheless, currently there are very few viable contenders in the web/AR space.
As mentioned, having traditional 3D, VR, and AR capabilities in the same framework (i.e., B4W) is a compelling reason to choose and stick with B4W.
~Brett
Well, that's a start :)
One of the reasons why I believe that comprehensive out-of-the-box AR support in B4W could be a good product development strategy (other than the obvious mega-trend that is AR) is that I have actively being searching for good web-based AR frameworks without much success. Both AR.js and AWE.js, although quite promising, are basically one-man shows: https://github.com/jeromeetienne/AR.js/graphs/contributors and https://github.com/awe-media/awe.js/graphs/contributors, respectively. Even Unity… when targeting the web, I don't think it is an attractive option. So, web-based AR is technically within reach (with cross-browser adoption of the necessary APIs, including WebRTC, media capture, etc); nonetheless, currently there are very few viable contenders in the web/AR space.
As mentioned, having traditional 3D, VR, and AR capabilities in the same framework (i.e., B4W) is a compelling reason to choose and stick with B4W.
~Brett
17 June 2017 17:42
Hi Alexander,
I think the inclusion of AR capabilities in B4W opens a huge set of possibilities. We've seen that web-based AR is possible with things like AR.js and now that Apple has announced (proper) WebRTC and media capture support for Safari, it seems to me that the necessary prerequisites for pervasive web-based AR are in place.
Now that B4W is including AR capabilities out-of-the-box, with regards to the software that I am developing with B4W, there will be the immediate advantage of having all of the 3D capabilities in the same "stack". That's a big deal for me :)
So, all in all, very happy to see AR capabilities added to B4W. I just hope that the B4W team sees AR for what it is (bigger than even VR) and makes B4W the best web-based AR platform. There really is a huge opportunity to establish yourselves as the go-to solution for web-based AR.
Best regards,
Brett
I think the inclusion of AR capabilities in B4W opens a huge set of possibilities. We've seen that web-based AR is possible with things like AR.js and now that Apple has announced (proper) WebRTC and media capture support for Safari, it seems to me that the necessary prerequisites for pervasive web-based AR are in place.
Now that B4W is including AR capabilities out-of-the-box, with regards to the software that I am developing with B4W, there will be the immediate advantage of having all of the 3D capabilities in the same "stack". That's a big deal for me :)
So, all in all, very happy to see AR capabilities added to B4W. I just hope that the B4W team sees AR for what it is (bigger than even VR) and makes B4W the best web-based AR platform. There really is a huge opportunity to establish yourselves as the go-to solution for web-based AR.
Best regards,
Brett
12 April 2017 08:26
Hi Evgeny,
Thanks for replying. Nonetheless, I have made several attempts to solve this issue (among others, following the approach you outlined above) without any success. I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this issue… potentially, also strange browser behaviour (if not a browser bug). If I solve this issue, I will post my solution here in the forum.
Brett
Thanks for replying. Nonetheless, I have made several attempts to solve this issue (among others, following the approach you outlined above) without any success. I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this issue… potentially, also strange browser behaviour (if not a browser bug). If I solve this issue, I will post my solution here in the forum.
Brett
12 April 2017 08:22
Okay, I understand the reasoning. Thanks for the response. Anyway, some examples of using Blend4Web with third-party AR solutions would be appreciated :)
Brett
Brett
05 April 2017 21:05
Hi,
I am implementing a B4W application that allows viewing of 3D objects in a separate dialog (using Twitter Bootstraps modal dialog: link) within an IFRAME. The aim is to ensure that the whole website/B4W application is reponsive and works well on, for example, iPads.
Nonetheless, unless I specify a specific width for the DIV of the canvas (code provided below), the B4W canvas does not resize to match the size of the container element (see attached screenshot).
I expect the problem is related to the Twitter Bootstrap dialog component (code provided below).
Has anyone tried placing a B4W canvas in a Twitter Bootstrap dialog and have it behave in a responsive way?
Best regards,
Brett
I am implementing a B4W application that allows viewing of 3D objects in a separate dialog (using Twitter Bootstraps modal dialog: link) within an IFRAME. The aim is to ensure that the whole website/B4W application is reponsive and works well on, for example, iPads.
Nonetheless, unless I specify a specific width for the DIV of the canvas (code provided below), the B4W canvas does not resize to match the size of the container element (see attached screenshot).
<div id="entity_canvas_container" style="width: 868px; height: 320px;"></div>
I expect the problem is related to the Twitter Bootstrap dialog component (code provided below).
<div class="modal" id="entityDialog" tabindex="-1" role="dialog" aria-labelledby="entityDialogLabel">
<div class="modal-dialog modal-lg" role="document">
<div class="modal-content">
<div class="modal-header">
<button type="button" class="close" data-dismiss="modal" aria-label="Close"><span aria-hidden="true">×</span></button>
<h4 class="modal-title" id="entityDialogLabel">Modal title</h4>
</div>
<div class="modal-body">
<iframe src="http://localhost:8000/entity_viewer/entity_viewer.html" width="100%" height="320" frameborder="0" id='entityViewer'></iframe>
<hr/>
<div class="entity-body-text">
...
</div>
</div>
<div class="modal-footer">
<button type="button" class="btn btn-default" data-dismiss="modal">Close</button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Has anyone tried placing a B4W canvas in a Twitter Bootstrap dialog and have it behave in a responsive way?
Best regards,
Brett
05 April 2017 20:47
Hi,
I have seen in other threads that AR support in B4W has been considered for quite some time (since, at least, December 2014). Nonetheless, currently no out-of-the-box support for AR is available in B4W. Not having out-of-the-box support for AR in B4W means that those that are using B4W for web-based 3D and *also* want to target AR have to use and integrate with additional tools and libraries, respectively (which increases complexity, substantially).
Web-based AR is becoming more and more viable as the AR.js (link) project has demonstrated: link
Hence, my question… would it be possible to get some kind of clarification with regards to what the intention is with AR in B4W? And if there is some kind of intention to provide AR support, what would that look like? I assume it would entail AR-specific APIs.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing B4W. That is, B4W is a fantastic tool and the team behind it have done and are doing a phenomenal job. The above questions, more than anything, are about trying to understand where B4W is heading with regards to AR.
Regards,
Brett
I have seen in other threads that AR support in B4W has been considered for quite some time (since, at least, December 2014). Nonetheless, currently no out-of-the-box support for AR is available in B4W. Not having out-of-the-box support for AR in B4W means that those that are using B4W for web-based 3D and *also* want to target AR have to use and integrate with additional tools and libraries, respectively (which increases complexity, substantially).
Web-based AR is becoming more and more viable as the AR.js (link) project has demonstrated: link
Hence, my question… would it be possible to get some kind of clarification with regards to what the intention is with AR in B4W? And if there is some kind of intention to provide AR support, what would that look like? I assume it would entail AR-specific APIs.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing B4W. That is, B4W is a fantastic tool and the team behind it have done and are doing a phenomenal job. The above questions, more than anything, are about trying to understand where B4W is heading with regards to AR.
Regards,
Brett
27 March 2017 21:24
Hi,
I see this thread was created in December 2014 which means that AR support in B4W has been considered for quite some time. Nonetheless, currently no out-of-the-box support for AR is available in B4W. Not having out-of-the-box support for AR in B4W means that those that are using B4W for web-based 3D and *also* want to target AR have to use and integrate with additional tools and libraries, respectively (which increases complexity, substantially).
Web-based AR is becoming more and more viable as the AR.js (link) project has demonstrated: link
Hence, my question… would it be possible to get some kind of clarification with regards to what the intention is with AR in B4W? And if there is some kind of intention to provide AR support, what would that look like? I assume it would entail AR-specific APIs.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing B4W. That is, B4W is a fantastic tool and the team behind it have done and are doing a phenomenal job. The above questions, more than anything, are about trying to understand where B4W is heading with regards to AR.
Regards,
Brett
I see this thread was created in December 2014 which means that AR support in B4W has been considered for quite some time. Nonetheless, currently no out-of-the-box support for AR is available in B4W. Not having out-of-the-box support for AR in B4W means that those that are using B4W for web-based 3D and *also* want to target AR have to use and integrate with additional tools and libraries, respectively (which increases complexity, substantially).
Web-based AR is becoming more and more viable as the AR.js (link) project has demonstrated: link
Hence, my question… would it be possible to get some kind of clarification with regards to what the intention is with AR in B4W? And if there is some kind of intention to provide AR support, what would that look like? I assume it would entail AR-specific APIs.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing B4W. That is, B4W is a fantastic tool and the team behind it have done and are doing a phenomenal job. The above questions, more than anything, are about trying to understand where B4W is heading with regards to AR.
Regards,
Brett
03 December 2016 19:23
Hi,
I've just seen in the source code for custom anchors (https://www.blend4web.com/apps/code_snippets/code_snippets.html?scene=custom_anchors_main) that it is possible to programmatically create or replace *generic* anchors in "run-time". Nonetheless, it seems like it is still necessary to create, name, and enable the empty as well as setting its type to generic in Blender in "design-time". I will look into this and report back with my findings :)
Brett
I've just seen in the source code for custom anchors (https://www.blend4web.com/apps/code_snippets/code_snippets.html?scene=custom_anchors_main) that it is possible to programmatically create or replace *generic* anchors in "run-time". Nonetheless, it seems like it is still necessary to create, name, and enable the empty as well as setting its type to generic in Blender in "design-time". I will look into this and report back with my findings :)
Brett
03 December 2016 12:52
Hi,
It seems like I'm always asking for the same thing: that is, the means to *programmatically* create and subsequently manipulate/change/interact with the different types of objects and capabilities that the Blend4Web framework provides.
As an example, Blend4Web's anchor functionality and accompanying JavaScript module (https://www.blend4web.com/api_doc/module-anchors.html), although excellent, seems to be too dependent on "doing it" in Blender. That is, this kind of functionality (e.g., the creation of anchors, setting anchor properties including its position in 3D space, text, style, etcetera) should all be available by means of the API. I know that some of these issues can be mitigated by using the "Custom Element" anchor type. Nonetheless, I have to manually create the empty in Blender and enable the anchor, etc.
I know I am asking for a lot :) But, at this stage it would be nice to know if the Blend4Web team agrees with this sentiment and if there are plans to go in this direction: that is, to enable access to as much as possible functionality directly from the API instead of having to "set things" from within Blender.
By the way… although, I am always asking for more I just want to say thank you for developing the Blend4Web framework and making it available (as open source and with different types of licenses). It's an outstanding piece of software.
Best regards,
Brett
It seems like I'm always asking for the same thing: that is, the means to *programmatically* create and subsequently manipulate/change/interact with the different types of objects and capabilities that the Blend4Web framework provides.
As an example, Blend4Web's anchor functionality and accompanying JavaScript module (https://www.blend4web.com/api_doc/module-anchors.html), although excellent, seems to be too dependent on "doing it" in Blender. That is, this kind of functionality (e.g., the creation of anchors, setting anchor properties including its position in 3D space, text, style, etcetera) should all be available by means of the API. I know that some of these issues can be mitigated by using the "Custom Element" anchor type. Nonetheless, I have to manually create the empty in Blender and enable the anchor, etc.
I know I am asking for a lot :) But, at this stage it would be nice to know if the Blend4Web team agrees with this sentiment and if there are plans to go in this direction: that is, to enable access to as much as possible functionality directly from the API instead of having to "set things" from within Blender.
By the way… although, I am always asking for more I just want to say thank you for developing the Blend4Web framework and making it available (as open source and with different types of licenses). It's an outstanding piece of software.
Best regards,
Brett