Re: [PlayerStage-Gazebo] new underlying libraries

[Jordi <mu...@gm...>]

> If you're considering Collada, then I suggest also considering X3D (used to
> be called VRML... remember that? :)

Yes, remember that.
A standard is something that most people use to make things easier, it is not 
something done by a "standard creation group". I think that VRML and X3D has 
so far failed to become a standard.

Anyway, we are not the first ones wondering about COLLADA - X3D :
http://partners.epoch-net.org/common_infrastructure/wiki/index.php/File_format:_Collada_vs._X3D
http://uvvy.com/index.php/3D_format_wars

Both are similar but _it seems_  that COLLADA is being used by far more 
projects even when it is newer than X3D.
My vote go for COLLADA.


Looking for more info about X3D, I have found this:

"Yes, both X3D and COLLADA are using XML, and both X3D and COLLADA can 
represent 3D.
But concluding that COLLADA is just another name for X3D is wrong. There are 
many important diffecences in the design.
The main difference being that if X3D is designed as the standard 3D format 
for the web, COLLADA is designed as a intermediate file format in the content 
pipeline.
In other words, those are compimentary efforts, and it is even better if it is 
easy to convert COLLADA back and forth in X3D. In an ideal world, data will 
be available in the COLLADA format, and converted into X3D or other formats 
that are specifically designed for a given target. 
Of course, it is always possible to write exporters from any tool directly 
into X3D, without using COLLADA. But instead of writting one exporter for 
each tool, maybe it is better to write one tool to convert from COLLADA, and 
use the COLLADA exporters/importers provided and supported directly by the 
tool and middleware vendors."

--
Jordi Polo