Linda Brynner wrote:
Ignorance, well wel,
Yes, ignorance, Linda. Almost nothing you've posted so far in this thread has much to do with the reality on the ground. Let's take it one point at a time, and see if we can't clear it up for you.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Did we all understand that Collada is from a fired team from Sony?
COLLADA was originally developed at Sony, yes, but Sony was hardly the only company involved. It was a collaborative effort between Sony, and many leading 3D graphics companies, including Autodesk, Avid, Alias, and others.
The goal was to develop a data set specification for an in-between file format that could effectively bridge the tremendous gulf between various proprietary native formats utilized by so many differing 3D modeling programs and game platforms. The effort was quite successful, in that regard, and the format is currently in widespread use across the industry (as are a few others that acheive similar ends).
Today, COLLADA is maintained not by Sony, but by the Khronos Group, a non-profit organization whose membership includes leading graphics companies, game studios, educational istitutions, and tech firms. Key members include Adobe, Electronic Arts, Epic, Unity, nVidia, ATI, Apple, IBM, Google, Mozilla, Motorola, Samsung, Intel, Sun, Yamaha, among many, many others. There are over 100 member organizations in total.
As for your notion that COLLADA came from a "fired team", I'm not sure where you're getting that. Sony works with all kinds of development teams, on all kinds of projects, for every length of time you could possibly think of. I've done work for Sony myself, on more than one occasion. The fact that I don't have a permanent position with them doesn't in any way mean I was ever fired by them. I work on a per-project basis, as do most people I know in this industry. When a project is done, I simply move on to the next one, whether it be with the same client or a different one.
Even if the people who happened to have worked on COLLADA in the beginning did end up getting fired later, though, who cares? It doesn't change the fact that COLLADA exists, nor does it in any way diminish the fact that it's currently in widespread use.
Linda Brynner wrote:
And... did we all understand that the specs from this open source project are way too complex?
Too complex how, exactly? I've never seen any evidence that COLLADA is any more or less complicated than any other 3D format with equal capabilities. If you yourself do not understand how it works, that's unfortunate for you. But that doesn't mean those who actually use it have such troubles.
Blender's issue with it had simply been a lack of manpower. Blender is developed entirely by volunteers, after all, so in order to get it to do ANYTHING, at least one developer somewhere in the world has to be actively interested in making it happen. That problem has been solved, as there is now a dedicated development team, committed to making sure COLLADA remains functional within Blender for the forseeable future. Bringing attention to that fact was the whole point of this thread. I'm not sure why you seem to have thought otherwise.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Did we all understand that this kind of complexity and open source thingy isn't very reliable consistent from a quality point of view?
It sounds like you just don't believe in the viability of open source, Linda. That's an unfortunately narrow viewpoint. The truth is there are all kinds of highly successful open source projects in existence on this planet, many of which are far more complex than COLLADA ever could be.
As for quality, both open and closed source projects have their share of high and low quality results. Blender happens to be an example of an open source project that is both highly complex, and very high in quality. COLLADA, as just a text-based file format, is infinitely less complex by comparison. It's quite high in quality, in the sense that when implemented as intended, it does exactly what it's supposed to do. It does have a few quirks, and implementation inconsistencies have cropped up here and there, but the same can be said for any number of widely used commercial formats.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Did we all understand that open souce = never top notch quality
I can't imagine where you'd dream up such a notion, Linda. How about we list some open source projects that absolutely ARE top quality?
- Firefox: Top notch quality browser, and it's open source.
- Blender: Top notch quality 3D modeling and animation program, and it's open source.
- GIMP: Top notch quality image editing program, and it's open source.
- Android: Top notch quality handheld device operating system, and it's open source.
- Linux: Top notch quality computer operating system, and it's open source.
- Audacity: Top notch quality audio editing program, and it's open source.
- WordPress: Top notch quality blogging/personal publishing platform, and it's open source.
- mySQL: Top notch quality database management system, and it's open source.
- BitTorrent - Top notch quality file sharing system, and it's open source.
- Second Life Viewer - Top notch quality virtual world viewer, and it's open source.
Need I go on? The above list represents a good portion of the most popular software products in the world. Many of them exemplify the state of the art in their particular product categories, and are industry standards. The fact that they happen to be open source in no way diminished their ability to become such.
Are there bad open source products as well? Sure, of course. There are plenty of both good and bad open source products, just as there are plenty of both good and bad closed-source ones. There's no direct correlation between the quality of a piece of software and its closed/open source status. To suggest any such relationship is just plain silly.
Linda Brynner wrote:
SL wants to be leading, no?
SL is a product. It can't "want" anything.
We as its users, and LL as its primary developers, of course want it to be as good as it possibly can be. With that in mind, I for one am glad LL chose COLLADA as its mesh import format. I know of no other format that meets all the requirements for what we need our models to be able to do, with respect to SL.
Linda Brynner wrote:
My point: why waste so much time (full years) and effort for so little while breaching the experience (speed, stability, relevance) for so many and isolating SL more in such a way that it is condemned to stay a technological niche on the internet ... thus not be "inviting" to get out of the isolated cage to become mainstream.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Linda.
First, the fact that it took years of effort to bring arbitrary mesh support to SL has nothing to do with the choice of COLLADA as the supported input format. The exact same technical hurdles would have needed to be overcome, no matter what input format was selected.
Second, the problems SL has always had with respect to speed, stablility, relevance, etc., also have nothing to do with COLLADA. Those same problems existed long before mesh support was even a blip on the radar, and they will continue to exist for a long time to come. I have no idea why you think COLLADA factors into that equation in any way.
Third, the advent of mesh support in SL is a very real part of the effort to make SL far less of a "technological niche", as you put it, than it always has been. For the first time, the exact same kind of 3D content that is usable in games and other virtual worlds is now also usable in SL. COLLADA does not hinder that in any way. In fact, it helps a great deal. A great many popular game engines already utilize COLLADA.
As for the prospect of SL ever becoming "mainstream", that has far more to do with the public's readiness to adopt virtual worlds in general than with anything else. It's an uphill battle, and likely always will be, for a multitude of reasons. But again, COLLADA has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Linda Brynner wrote:
The answer is given, it is too complex... thus... not for the average user, thus for the geeks, thus not adding to SL growth and real prosperity.
There's nothing any more or less complex about COLLADA than about any other format, at the user level. No matter what the format, the user work flow is identical. It's the same simple two-step process, in every conceivable case:
- Export from modeling program.
- Upload to SL.
The particular output format simply doesn't matter, in this context. Step one is always step one, and step two is always step two, no matter what file extension happens to be in play. I can't imagine why you might think using any other format would change this in any way.
I have to ask, have you ever actually created a mesh model yourself, and uploaded it to SL? It really doesn't sound like you have.
Linda Brynner wrote:
It's a waste of expensive time. We'll talk in a few years from now
Who's time is being wasted, and how? And what about it is expensive?
The people who stepped up to fix Blender's COLLADA problems are volunteers. They're doing it of their own initiative, and their own free will, simply because it needed to be done. I have no idea why you seem to think that's a bad thing.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Alternative? Irrelevant.
As much as I hate to say this, you've now crossed the line from simple ignorance to decided stupidity. You state that you don't like Choice A, but then you go on to say that any suggestion for a Choice B would be irrelevant? How does that possibly make any sense? Hello, McFly?
Linda Brynner wrote:
Are you an advocate to spin off Collade for SL?
Who said anything about spinning anything off? Gaia simply announced some good news, which is that there's now a conscious effort being made within the Blender development community to ensure that that program's COLLADA support remains fully compatible with SL's requirements for COLLADA implementation. In other words, the problems within Blender that previously caused some incompatibilities with SL are now fixed. How exactly is that a bad thing in your world?
As for COLLADA itself, as I said in the beginning, it's managed by the Khronos Group, not by the Blender Foundation. No one in the Blender community could change the COLLADA standard, even if they wanted to, which nobody does anyway.
You make it sound as if you think Blender and COLLADA are the same thing. They're not.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Your text reads so commercial, all hurray.
When someone says a small group of volunteers have stepped up to volunteer their time, to solve a current problem affecting the community, entirely for free, that strikes you as "commercial"?
Anyone else reminded of a certain scene from The Princess Bride? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Even if it were somehow commercial, though, what would it matter? The point is the problem is being fixed. That's all that matters. Blender users who were having compatibility problems with SL will no longer have those problems. Again, I can't imagine why you would think that's a bad thing.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Earlier i did clearly understand that Blender was to take their hands off of Collada due to instability and too low quality of consistancy of creation and upload.
No, what happened was the Blender development team announced they were considering dropping COLLADA support since they were lacking in manpower to solve certain problems that Blender had with its particular COLLADA implementation. It wasn't about anything being wrong with COLLADA itself. It was all about Blender's own issues with supporting it properly.
That lack of manpower is now no longer the case, as a dedicated team now exists for the purpose at hand. So, there's no longer any reason to consider dropping Blender's support of the format. Once again, I simply cannot fathom why you would think that's a bad thing. It's hugely positive.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Reason: some staff fired from Sony have started Collada as an open source initiative and the progression sofar has been in its child birth phase.
Your display of ignorance here, under the pretense of knowledge, is staggaring.
First, COLLADA hasn't been a SONY thing for a very long time now. But even if it still were, what difference would it possibly make? It's equally available, no matter what orginization is managing it.
Second, COLLADA is well past the "child birth phase", as you put it. It's currently in its fifth point release.
Third, even if it were still in its original state, with no subsequent improvements (which as I said, it's not), what would be so wrong with that, in this context? Other formats that we use every day for SL haven't changed since their initial development, years or even decades ago.
TGA, for exmaple, is still the same today as it was in its original release back in the mid 80's. If we apply your wording, I guess we could therefore call it a baby that never aged a day since the day it was born. You seem to be implying that such lack of change is somehow bad. I don't understand why you would think that. If it works, it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
TGA works perfectly, as long as the program(s) you happen to be using support it properly, as intended. COLLADA works, too, by the exact same standard of logic. All that is required for its successful usage is that whatever program(s) you happen to use support it correctly. Blender didn't do that for a while, but now it does. For the umpteenth time, I don't understand why you think that's bad.
Linda Brynner wrote:
In other words, are SL and Blender not too early to jump on that train departing likely to be derailed?
What on Earth makes you think it's "likely to be derailed"? As I said earlier, many of the most popular game engines in existence utilize COLLADA, and all major 3D modeling platforms support it. I've never seen any evidence to suggest it's in danger of going away any time in the forseeable future.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Now, in the IT corporate business such has happened before, but did not more 3D software companies take their hand off of Collada?
I don't understand what you mean by your reference to "IT corporate business". IT departments at businesses are responsible for making sure their own companies' computers and networks are in good working order. That's all they do. They don't dictate the development of file formats in any way.
As for 3D software companies, the biggest hitter in that regard is Autodesk, and pretty much all their products support COLLADA. Generally speaking, as goes Autodesk goes the industry. DAZ, which has become a fairly major player as well in recent years, at least among the amateur and semi-pro segments of the industry, also supports COLLADA in most of its software products. So does Google, for whatever that's worth, and so do lots of other smaller software makers.
If you meant game companies, then as I've said a few times now, a lot of the most popular game engines currently in use also support COLLADA. These include the Cry Engine, Unity, Torque, Unreal, and many others.
Look, I get that most SL users never heard of COLLADA before SL got mesh support, and maybe you're one of those people yourself. But you'd do well to keep in mind that most SL users have never heard of a great many of things commonly used in the 3D industry at large. Before mesh support, SL was an island unto itself, upon which creators could create wihtout having to know much of anything at all, beyond the workings of their chosen virtual world.
Now that SL's content creation pipeline has gone mainstream, creators can no longer afford to be so narrowly focused. They need to learn how 3D content creation works for real, lest they perish. Understandably, some are not happy about that, and are lashing out. I can only hope that those people come around, to adopt a more mature attitude about what facts they're going to need to learn, and what technologies they're going to need to embrace. Those who don't will go away.
Linda Brynner wrote:
LL bought all shares? LL bought an exclusive license? LL bought a (near) bankrupt venue?
What the heck are you talking about? LL didn't buy a thing. There are no shares. There is no near-bankrupt venture. (You did mean "venture" right, not "venue"? I mean, you don't really think LL bought a concert hall or something, do you?)
When Gaia said, "SL is the stakeholder," she didn't mean it in the financial sense. The term "stakeholder" in this context, simply means that for which primarily compatibility will be ensured. In other words, from this point on, Blender's continued support of COLLADA will be handled with SL users' success in mind, first and foremost. That's it, and that's all.
You'd do well not to jump to such haphazard assumptions, assigning such undue meaning to entire posts, just because you don't understand the usage of a single word. Next time, how about just asking what the word means?
Linda Brynner wrote:
LL has bought a cheap license from a near dead team who left Sony?
Nobody has to buy a license for COLLADA. It's open source. You do know that that's what open source means, right?
As for this notion of a "near dead team who left Sony", there's nothing near dead about the Khronos group. They're made up of over 100 of the most successful organizations on this planet.
Linda Brynner wrote:
In other words SL is therefore the only main stakeholder left with Blender as their vehicle to spread the word for them for a lost case?
Again, you appear to be completely misunderstanding the word "stakeholder" in this context.
As for "lost case", I assume you mean "lost cause"? What makes you think COLLADA is a lost cause? As I've said many, many times now, it's in widespread use, and has been for years. Just because YOU might not have previously encountered it doesn't mean others aren't using it.
Linda Brynner wrote:
In other words... so Collada indeed is to bleed to a certain death in an isolated business case?
Uh, no. COLLADA is to remain what it's been since its inception, an in-between file format that bridges the gulf between the proprietary needs of various 3D applications, for the purpose of transferring content between them. It continues to do its job very well in this regard, as long as the programs in question are set up properly to support the format. Again, Blender in particular had some problems in this regard for a while, but now those problems are being solved.
Linda Brynner wrote:
I mean if it is to be that Collada is for LL and SL only now, that says a lot...
Who said anything about COLLADA being for SL only? You've so distorted the meaning of Gaia's announcement, it's pathetic.
What she said was that Blender's support of COLLADA will be aimed at keeping it compatible with SL, from this point on.
Again, I'd like to remind you that Blender is not COLLADA, and further, SL is not COLLADA. Both are just programs that happen to support the format right now. Even if Blender were to drop its COLLADA support tomorrow, and even if SL also were to drop it, (neither of which is going to happen), COLLADA itself would still do just fine. The only difference would be that Blender users and SL users, both of whom constitute just a very tiny fraction of the 3D modeling community as a whole, wouldn't be able to use it anymore. Everyone else still would.
Linda Brynner wrote:
Just asking.
If I thought for a moment that that were true, I might have taken a somewhat looser approach to my response. But clearly you weren't "just asking" anything. From your words here, all signs are you have some kind of chip on your shoulder about COLLADA, about open source projects, and possibly about SL's very adoption of mesh support in general. So, you took the opportunity to try to spread fear, panic, and misunderstanding about all. Then you said, "Just asking" in order to make the whole thing somehow appear a little more palletable to the readership.
It didn't work.
(Edited for typos.)
(Edited again on 6/21/2012, to fix a previously unnoticed typo. Thanks to HannaiPetrus for pointing it out.)
"It's a big universe. Everything happens somewhere."
- The Doctor
It is great news because it makes Second Life the reference implementation that Blender's COLLADA exporter will be tested against. Any change that breaks SL compatibility will not make it into a Blender release. It also opens the door to some improvements that were discussed with Linden Lab recently, such as importing multiple LODs and physics meshes (and maybe even animations, as an alternative to BVH) in a single COLLADA file.
