You are currently browsing articles tagged WebGL.

guest post by Patrick Cozzi, @pjcozzi.

This isn’t as crazy as it sounds: WebGL has a chance to become the graphics API of choice for real-time graphics research. Here’s why I think so.

An interactive demo is better than a video.

WebGL allows us to embed demos in a website, like the demo for The Compact YCoCg Frame Buffer by Pavlos Mavridis and Georgios Papaioannou. A demo gives readers a better understanding than a video alone, allows them to reproduce performance results on their hardware, and enables them to experiment with debug views like the demo for WebGL Deferred Shading by Sijie Tian, Yuqin Shao, and me. This is, of course, true for a demo written with any graphics API, but WebGL makes the barrier-to-entry very low; it runs almost everywhere (iOS is still holding back the floodgates) and only requires clicking on a link. Readers and reviewers are much more likely to check it out.

WebGL runs on desktop and mobile.

Android devices now have pretty good support for WebGL. This allows us to write the majority of our demo once and get performance numbers for both desktop and mobile. This is especially useful for algorithms that will have different performance implications due to differences in GPU architectures, e.g., early-z vs. tile-based, or network bandwidth, e.g., streaming massive models.

WebGL is starting to expose modern GPU features.

WebGL is based on OpenGL ES 2.0 so it doesn’t expose features like query timers, compute shaders, uniform buffers, etc. However, with some WebGL 2 (based on ES 3.0) features being exposed as extensions, we are getting access to more GPU features like instancing and multiple render targets. Given that OpenGL ES 3.1 will be released this year with compute shaders, atomics, and image load/store, we can expect WebGL to follow. This will allow compute-shader-based research in WebGL, an area where I expect we’ll continue to see innovation. In addition, with NVIDIA Tegra K1, we see OpenGL 4.4 support on mobile, which could ultimately mean more features exposed by WebGL to keep pace with mobile.

Some graphics research areas, such as animation, don’t always need access to the latest GPU features and instead just need a way to visualization their results. Even many of the latest JCGT papers on rendering can be implemented with WebGL and the extensions it exposes today (e.g., “Weighted Blended Order-Independent Transparency“). On the other hand, some research will explore the latest GPU features or use features only available to languages with pointers, for example, using persistent-mapped buffers in Approaching Zero Driver Overhead by Cass Everitt, Graham Sellers, John McDonald, and Tim Foley.

WebGL is faster to develop with.

Coming from C++, JavaScript takes some getting use to (see An Introduction to JavaScript for Sophisticated Programmers by Morgan McGuire), but it has its benefits: lighting-fast iteration times, lots of open-source third-party libraries, some nice language features such as functions as first-class objects and JSON serialization, and some decent tools. Most people will be more productive in JavaScript than in C++ once up to speed.

JavaScript is not as fast as C++, which is a concern when we are comparing a CPU-bound algorithm to previous work in C++. However, for GPU-bound work, JavaScript and C++ are very similar.

Try it.

Check out the WebGL Report to see what extensions your browser supports. If it meets the needs for your next research project, give it a try!

Tags: , , ,

With the holidays upon us, it’s time to hack! Well, a little bit. I spent a fair bit of time improving my transforms demo, folding in comments from others and my own ideas. Many thanks to all who sent me suggestions (and anyone’s welcome to send more). I like one subtle feature now: if the blue test point is clipped, it turns red and clipping is also noted in the transforms themselves.

The feature I like the most is that which shows the frustum. Run the demo and select “Show frustum: depths”. Admire that the scene is rendered on the view frustum’s near plane. Rotate the camera around (left mouse) until it’s aligned to a side view of the view frustum. You’ll see the near and far plane depths (colored), and some equally spaced depth planes in between (in terms of NDC and Z-depth values, not in terms of world coordinates).


Now play with the near and far plane depths under “Camera manipulation” (open that menu by clicking on the arrow to the left of the word “Camera”). This really shows the effect of moving the near place close to the object, evening out the distribution of the plane depths. Here’s an example:


The mind-bender part of this new viewport feature is that if you rotate the camera, you’re of course rotating the frustum in the opposite direction in the viewport, which holds the view of the scene steady and shows the camera’s movement. My mind is constantly seeing the frustum “inverted”, as it wants both directions to be in the same direction, I think. I even tried modeling the tip where the eye is located, to give a “front” for the eye position, but that doesn’t help much. Probably a fully-modeled eyeball would be a better tipoff, but that’s way more work than I want to put into this.

You can try lots of other things; dolly is done with the mouse wheel (or middle mouse up and down), pan with the right mouse. All the code is downloadable from my github repository.

Click on image for a larger, readable version.


Tags: , , , ,

Try it out (you have to have WebGL enabled etc.)


I made this demo as a few students of the Interactive Graphics MOOC were asking for something showing the various transforms from beginning to end.

It’s not a fantastic demo (yet), but if you roughly understand the pipeline, you can then look at a given point and see how it goes through each transform.

It’s actually kind of a fun puzzle or guessing game, if you understand the transforms: if I pan, what values will change? What if I change the field of view, or the near plane?

I’d love suggestions. I can imagine ways to help guide the user with what various coordinate transforms mean, e.g. putting up a pixel grid and labeling it when just the window coordinates transform is selected, or maybe a second window showing a side view and the frustum (but I’m not sure what I’d put in that window, or what view to use for an arbitrary camera).

I’ve been bumping into limitations of three.js as it is, but I’m on a roll so that’s why I’m asking.


Tags: , , ,

by Patrick Cozzi, who works on the Cesium WebGL engine.

With the new shader editor in Firefox 27 (available now in Aurora), WebGL tools are taking a big step in the right direction. This article reviews the current state of WebGL debugging and profiling tools with a focus on their use for real engines, not simple demos. In particular, our engine creates shaders dynamically; uses WebGL extensions like Vertex Array Objects; dynamically creates, updates, and deletes 100′s of MB of vertex buffers and textures; renders to different framebuffers; and uses web workers. We’re only interested in tools that provide useful results for our real-world needs.

Firefox WebGL Shader Editor

The Firefox WebGL Shader Editor allows us to view all shader programs in a WebGL app, edit them in real-time, and mouse over them to see what parts of the scene were drawn using them.

What I like most about it is it actually works. Scenes in our engine usually have 10-50 procedurally-generated shaders that can be up to ~1,000 lines. The shader editor handles this smoothly and automatically updates when new shaders are created.


The skybox shader is shown in the editor and the geometry is highlighted in red. (Click on any image for its full-screen version.)

I was very impressed to see the shader editor also work on the Epic Citadel demo, which has 249 shaders, some of which are ~2,000 lines.


Live editing is, of course, limited. For example, we can’t add new uniforms and attributes and provide data for them; however, we can add new varying variables to pass data between vertex and fragment shaders.

Given that the editor needs to recompile after our edits, attribute and uniform locations could change, e.g., if uniforms are optimized out, which would break most apps (unless the app is querying these every frame, which is a terrible performance idea). However, the editor seems to handle remapping under-the-hood since removing uniforms doesn’t break other uniforms.

Recompiling after typing stops works well even for our large shaders. However, every editor I see like this, including JavaScript ones we’ve built, tends to remove this feature in favor of an explicit run, as the lag can otherwise be painful.

There are some bugs, such as mousing over some shaders causes artifacts or parts of the scene to go away, which makes editing those shaders impossible.


Even though this is in a pre-beta version of Firefox, I find it plenty usable. Other than spot testing, I use Chrome for development, but this tool really makes me want to use Firefox, at least for shader debugging.

We planned to write a tool like this for our engine, but I’m glad the Mozilla folks did it instead since it benefits the entire WebGL community. An engine-specific tool will still be useful for some. For example, this editor uses the shader source provided to WebGL. If a shader is procedurally-generated, an engine-specific editor can present the individual snippets, nodes in a shade tree, etc.

A few features that would make this editor even better include:

  • Make boldface any code in #ifdef blocks that evaluate to true. This is really useful for ubershaders.
  • Mouse over a pixel and show the shader used. Beyond debugging, this would be a great teaching aid and tool for understanding new apps. I keep pitching the idea of mousing over a pixel and then showing a profile of the fragment shader as a final project to my students, but no one ever bites. Easy, right?
  • An option to see only shaders actually used in a frame, instead of all shaders in the WebGL context, since many shaders can be for culled objects. Taking it a step further, the editor could show only shaders for non-occluded fragments.

For a full tutorial, see Live editing WebGL shaders with Firefox Developer Tools.

WebGL Inspector

The WebGL Inspector was perhaps the first WebGL debugging tool. It hasn’t been updated in a long time, but it is still useful.

WebGL Inspector can capture a frame and step through it, building the scene one draw call at a time; view textures, buffers, state, and shaders; etc.

The trace shows all the WebGL calls for a frame and nicely links to more info for function arguments that are WebGL objects. We can see the contents and filter state of textures, contents of vertex buffers, and shader source and current uniforms.



One of WebGL Inspector’s most useful features is highlighting redundant WebGL calls, which I use often when doing analysis before optimizing.


Like most engines, setting uniforms is a common bottleneck for us and we are guilty of setting some redundant uniforms for now.

WebGL Inspector may take some patience to get good results. For our engine, the scene either isn’t visible or is pushed to the bottom left. Also, given its age, this tool doesn’t know about extensions such as Vertex Array Objects. So, when we run our engine with WebGL Inspector, we don’t get the full set of extensions supported by the browser.

The WebGL Inspector page has a full walkthrough of its features.

Chrome Canvas Inspector

The Canvas Inspector in Chrome DevTools is like a trimmed-down WebGL Inspector built right into Chrome. It is an experimental feature but available in Chrome stable (Chrome 31). In chrome://flags/, “Enable Developer Tools experiments” needs to be checked and then the inspector needs to be explicitly enabled in the DevTools settings.

Although it doesn’t have nearly as many features as WebGL Inspector, Canvas Inspector is integrated into the browser and trivial to use once enabled.


Draw calls are organized into groups that contain the WebGL state calls and the affected draw call. We can step one draw group or one WebGL call at a time (all WebGL tracing tools can do this). The scene is supposed to be shown one draw call at a time, but we currently need to turn off Vertex Array Objects for it to work with our engine. Canvas Inspector can also capture consecutive frames pretty well.

The inspector is nicely integrated into the DevTools so, for example, there are links from a WebGL call to the line in the JavaScript file that invoked it. We can also view the state of resources like textures and buffers, but not their contents or history.

Tools like WebGL Inspector and Canvas Inspector are also useful for code reviews. When we add a new rendering feature, I like to profile and step through the code as part of the review, not just read it. We have found culling bugs when stepping through draw calls and then asking why there are so many that aren’t contributing to any pixels.

For a full Canvas Inspector tutorial, see Canvas Inspection using Chrome DevTools.

Google Web Tracing Framework

The Google Web Tracing Framework (WTF) is a full tracing framework, including support for WebGL similar to WebGL Inspector and Canvas Inspector. It is under active development on github; they addressed an issue I submitted in less than a day! Even without manually instrumenting our code, we can get useful and reliable results.

Here we’re stepping through a frame one draw call at a time:


For WebGL, WTF has similar trace capability as the above inspectors, combined with all its general JavaScript tracing features. The WebGL trace integrates nicely with the tracks view.


Above, we see the tracks for frame #53. The four purple blocks are texture uploads using texSubImage2D to load new imagery tiles we received from a web worker. Each call is followed by several WebGL state calls and a drawElements call to reproject the tile on the GPU (see World-Scale Terrain Rendering from the Rendering Massive Virtual Worlds SIGGRAPH 2013 course). The right side of the frame shows all the state and draw calls for the actual scene.

Depending on how many frames the GPU is behind, a better practice would be to do all the texSubImage2D calls, followed by all the reprojection draw calls, or even move the reprojection draw calls to the end of the frame with the scene draw calls. The idea here is to ensure that the texture upload is complete by the time the reprojection draw call is executed. This trades the latency of completing any one for the throughput of computing many. I have not tried it in this case so I can’t say for certain if the driver lagging behind isn’t already enough time to cover the upload.


The tracks view gets really interesting when we examine slow frames highlighted in yellow. Above, the frame takes 27ms! It looks similar to the previous frame with four texture uploads followed by drawing the scene, but it’s easy to see the garbage collector kicked in, taking up almost 12ms.


Above is our first frame, which takes an astounding 237ms because it compiles several shaders. The calls to compileShader are very fast because they don’t block, but the immediate call to linkProgram needs to block, taking ~7ms for the one shown above. A call to getShaderParameter or getShaderInfoLog would also need to block to compile the shader. It is a best practice to wait as long as possible to use a shader object after calling compileShader to take advantage of asynchronous driver implementations. However, testing on my MacBook Pro with an NVIDIA GeForce 650M did not show this. Putting a long delay before linkProgram did not decrease its latency.

For more details, see the WTF Getting Started page. You may want to clear a few hours.

More Tools

The WebGL Report is handy for seeing a system’s WebGL capabilities, including extensions, organized by pipeline stage. It’s not quite up-to-date with all the system-dependent values for the most recent extensions, but it’s close. Remember, to access draft extensions in Chrome, we need to explicitly enable them in the browser now. For enabling draft extensions in Firefox you need to go to “about:config” and set the “webgl.enable-draft-extensions” preference to true.


The simple Chrome Task Manager (in the Window menu) is useful for quick and dirty memory usage. Make sure to consider both your app’s process and the GPU process.


Although I have not used it, webgl-debug.js wraps WebGL calls to include calls to getError. This is OK for now, but we really need KHR_debug in WebGL to get the debugging API desktop OpenGL has had for a few years. See ARB_debug_output: A Helping Hand for Desperate Developers in OpenGL Insights.

There are also WebGL extensions that provide debugging info to privileged clients (run Chrome with –enable-privileged-webgl-extensions). WEBGL_debug_renderer_info provides VENDOR and RENDERER strings. WEBGL_debug_shaders provides a shader’s source after it was translated to the host platform’s native language. This is most useful on Windows where ANGLE converts GLSL to HLSL. Also see The ANGLE Project: Implementing OpenGL ES 2.0 on Direct3D in OpenGL Insights.

The Future

The features expected in WebGL 2.0, such as multiple render targets and uniform buffers, will bring us closer to the feature-set OpenGL developers have enjoyed for years. However, API features alone are not enough; we need an ecosystem of tools to create an attractive platform.

Building WebGL tools, such as the Firefox Shader Editor and Chrome Canvas Inspector, directly into the browser developer tools is the right direction. It makes the barrier to entry low, especially for projects with limited time or developers. It helps more developers use the tools and encourages using them more often, for the same reason that unit tests that run in the blink of an eye are then used frequently.

The current segmentation of Google’s tools may appear confusing but I think it shows the evolution. WebGL Inspector was first out of the gate and proved very useful. Because of this, the next generation version is being built into Chrome Canvas Inspector for easy access and into the WTF for apps that need careful, precise profiling. For me, WTF is the tool of choice.

We still lack a tool for setting breakpoints and watch variables in shaders. We don’t have what NVIDIA Nsight is to CUDA, or what AMD CodeXL is to OpenCL. I doubt that browser vendors alone can build these tools. Instead, I’d like to see hardware vendors provide back-end support for a common front-end debugger built into the browser.

Tags: , , ,

The recently and sadly departed Game Developer magazine had a great post-mortem article format of “5 things that went right/went wrong” with some videogame, by its creators. I thought I’d try one myself for the MOOC “Interactive 3D Graphics” that I helped develop. I promise my next posts will not be about MOOCs, really. The payoff, not to be missed, is the demo at the end – click that picture below if you want to skip the words part and want dessert now.

Good Points

Three.js: This layer on top of WebGL meant I could initially hide details critical to WebGL but overwhelming for beginners, such as shader programming. The massive number of additional resources and libraries available were a huge help: there’s a keyframing library, a collision detection library, a post-processing library, on and on. Documentation: often lacking; stability: sketchy – interfaces change from release to release; usefulness: incredible – it saved me tons of time, and the course wouldn’t have gone a third as far as it did if I used just vanilla WebGL.

Web Stuff: I didn’t have to handle any of the web programming, and I’m still astounded at how much was possible, thanks to Gundega Dekena (the assistant instructor) and the rest of the Udacity web programmers. Being able to show a video, then let a student try out a demo, then ask him or her a question, then provide a programming exercise, all in a near-seamless flow, is stunning to me. Going into this course we didn’t know this system was going to work at all; a year later WebGL is now more stable and accepted, e.g., Internet Explorer is now finally going to support it. The bits that seem peripheral to the course matter a lot: Udacity’s forum is nicely integrated, with students’ postings about particular lessons directly linked from those pages. It’s lovely having a website that lets students download all videos (YouTube is slow or banned in various places), scripts, and code used in the course.

Course Format: Video has some advantages over text. The simple ability to point at things in a figure while talking through them is a huge benefit. Letting the student try out some graphics algorithm and get a sense of what it does is fantastic. Once he or she has some intuition as to what’s going on, we can then dig into details. I wanted to get stuff students could sensibly control (triangles, materials) on the screen early on.  Most graphics books and courses focus on dreary transforms and matrices early on. I was able to put off these “eat your green beans” lessons until nearly halfway through the course, as three.js gave enough support that the small bits of code relating to lights and cameras could be ignored for a time. Before transforms, students learned a bit about materials, a topic I think is more immediately engaging.

Reviewers and Contributors: I had lots of help from Autodesk co-workers, of course. Outside of that, every person I asked “can I show your cool demo in a lesson?” said yes – I love the graphics community. Most critical of all, I had great reviewers who caught a bunch of problems and contributed some excellent ideas and revisions. Particular kudos to Gundega Dekena, Mauricio Vives, Patrick Cozzi, and at the end, Branislav Ulicny (AlteredQualia). I owe them each like a house or something.

Creative Control: I’m happy with how most of the lessons came out. I overreached with a few lessons (“Frames” comes to mind), and a few lines I delivered in some videos make me groan when I hear them. However, the content itself of many of the recordings are the best I’ve ever explained some topics, definite improvements on Real-Time Rendering. That book is good, but is not meant as an introductory text. I think of this course as the prequel to that volume, sort of like the Star Wars prequels, only good. The scripts for all the lessons add up to about 850 full-sized sheets of paper, about 145,000 words. It’s a book, and I’m happy with it overall.

Some Bad Points

Automatic Grading: A huge boon on one level, since grading individual projects would have been a never-ending treadmill for us humans. Quick stats: the course has well over 30,000 enrollments, with about 1500 people active in any given week, 71% outside the U.S. But, it meant that some of the fun of computer graphics – making cool projects such as Rube Goldberg devices or little games or you name it – couldn’t really be part of the core course. We made up for this to some extent by creating contests for students. Some entries from the first contest are quite nice. Some from the second are just plain cool. But, the contests are over now, with no new ones on the horizon. My consolation is that anyone who is self-motivated enough to work their way through this course is probably going to go off and do interesting things anyway, not just say, “Computer graphics, check, now I know that – on to basket weaving” (though I guess that’s fine, too).

Difficulty in Debugging: The cool thing about JavaScript is that you can debug simple programs in the browser, e.g. in Chrome just hit F12. The bad news is that this debugger doesn’t work well with the in-browser code development system Udacity made. The workarounds are to perform JSHint on any code in the browser, which catches simple typos, and to provide the course code on Github; developing the code locally on your machine means you can use the debugger. Still, a fully in-browser solution with debugging available would have been better.

Videos: Some people like Salman Khan can give a lecture and draw at the same time, in a single take. That’s not my skill set, and thankfully the video editors did a lot to clean up my recordings and fix mistakes as found. However, a few bugs still slipped through or were difficult to correct without me re-recording the lesson. We point these out in the Instructor Notes, but re-recording is a lot of time and effort on all our parts, and involves cross-country travel for me. Text or code is easy to fix and rearrange, videos are not. I expect this limitation is something our kids will someday laugh or scratch their heads about. As far as the format itself goes, it seems like a pain to me to watch a video and later scrub through it to find some code bit needed in an upcoming exercise. I think it’s important to have the PDF scripts of the videos available to students, though I suspect most students don’t use them or even know about them. I believe students cope by having two browser windows open side-by-side, one with the paused video, one with the exercise they’re working on.

Out of Time: Towards the end of the course some of the lessons become (relatively) long lectures and are less interactive; I’m looking at you, Unit 8. This happened mostly because I was running out of time – it was quicker for me to just talk than to think up interesting questions or program up worthwhile exercises. Also, the nature of the material was more general, less feature-oriented, which made for more traditional lectures that were tougher to simply quiz about. Still, having a deadline focused my efforts (even if I did miss the deadline by a month or so), and it’s good there was a deadline, otherwise I’d endlessly fiddle with improving bits of the course. I think my presentation style improved overall as the lessons go on; the flip side is that the earlier lessons are rougher in some ways, which may have put students off. Looking back on the first unit, I see a bunch of things I’d love to redo. I’d make more in-browser demos, for starters – at the beginning I didn’t realize that was even possible.

Hollow Halls: MOOCs can be divided into two types by how they’re offered. One approach is self-paced, such as this MOOC. The other has a limited duration, often mirroring a real-world class’s progression. The self-paced approach has a bunch of obvious advantages for students: no waiting to start, take it at your own speed, skip over lessons you don’t care about, etc. The advantages of a launched course are community and a deadline. On the forum you’re all at the same lesson and so study groups form and discussions take place. Community and a fixed pace can help motivate students to stick it through until the end (though of course can lose other students entirely, who can then never finish). The other downside of self-pacing is that, for the instructor(s), the course is always-on, there’s no break! I’m pretty responsible and like answering forum posts, but it’s about a half hour out of my day, every day, and the time piles up if I’m on vacation for a week. Looking this morning, there are nine forum posts to check out… gotta go!

But it all works out, I’m a little freaked out. For some reason that song went through my head a lot while recording, and gave a title to this post.

Below is one of the contest entries for the course. Click on the image to run the demo; more about the project on the Udacity forums. You may need to refresh to get things in sync. A more reliable solution is to pick another song, which almost always causes syncing to occur. See other winners here, and the chess game is also one I enjoyed.

Musical Turk


Tags: , , , , ,

Short version: the Interactive 3D Graphics course is now entirely out, the last five units have been added: Lights, Cameras, Texturing, Shader Programming, Animation. Massive (22K people registered so far), worldwide (around 128 countries, > 70% students from outside U.S.). Uses three.js atop WebGL. Start at any time, work at your own pace, only basic programming skills needed. Free.

That’s the elevator talk, Twitterized (well, maybe 3 tweets worth). I won’t blab on and on about it, just a few things.

First, it’s so cool to be able to show a student a video, then give a quiz, then let them interact with a demo, then have them write some code for an exercise, all in the browser. Udacity rocketh, both the web programmers and video editors.

Second, I’m very happy about how a whole bunch of lessons turned out. The tough part in all this is trying to not lose your audience. I think I push a bit hard at times, but some of my explanations I like a lot. Mipmapping, antialiasing, gamma correction – a number of the later lectures in particular felt quite good to me, and I thought things hung together well. Shhh, don’t tell me otherwise. Really, it’s not pride so much; I’m just happy to have figured out good ways to explain some things simply.

Third, I wrote a book, basically: it’s about 850 full-sized pages and about 145,000 words. It’s free to download, along with the videos and code. I think of this course as the precursor to Real-Time Rendering, sort of like “Star Wars: Episode 1″, except it’s good. I should really say “we wrote a book”: Gundega Dekena, Patrick Cozzi, Mauricio Vives, and near the end Branislav Ulicny (AlteredQualia) offered a huge amount of help in reviewing, catching various mistakes and suggesting numerous improvements. Many others kindly helped with video clips, interviews, permission to show demos, on and on it goes. Thanks all of you!

Fourth, I love that the demos from the course are online for anyone to point at and click on. Some of these demos are not absolutely fascinating, but each (once you know what you’re looking at) is handy in its own way for explaining some graphics phenomenon. The code’s all downloadable, so others can use them as a basis to make better ones. I’ve wanted this sort of thing for 16 years – took awhile to arrive, but now it’s finally here.

Fifth, working with students from around the world is wonderful! I love helping people on the forums with just a bit of effort on my end. Also, I just noticed a study group starting up. I’ve also enjoyed seeing contest entries, e.g.,  here are the drinking bird entries, click a pic to see it in WebGL:


What’s making a MOOC itself like? See John Owens’ excellent article - my experience is pretty much the same.

A close-up in the recording studio, my little world for a few weeks:

Tags: , , ,

I like to give 7 links for a day, but I’ve been busy the past half year or so with the interactive 3D graphics MOOC. In two days the second half of the course will roll out, and I’ll blab about that later (in, like, two days). In the meantime, here are 490 links for the half year I’ve been missing. Basically, it’s the Instructor Notes for a bunch of the lessons in the course, additional material and links relevant to the subjects. I admit it, there are a lot of weaksauce links in there, basics for beginners and pointers to Wikipedia this and that. But there are also some great things in there.

Hey, let’s turn this into 7 great links (use Chrome or Firefox to view them, or enable WebGL in Safari):

I know there are a bunch more links in the Instructor Notes that are worthwhile (things like the GLSL shader validator plug-in for Sublime Text 2), but these particular ones stuck with me.

I did get to visit the shrine one morning while in Mountain View recording:

Tags: , , ,

Yup, Zup?

In other words, is Y up, or is Z up? It’s a loaded question. My little lesson from the course is here, in case you don’t know the issue. What’s more entertaining, and the point of this post, are the answers I got back from the people I asked.

Speaking of cameras, is there nothing that three.js cannot do? Check out this incredible piece of wonderfulness and have a webcam ready. Or go right to the demo, and then the other demo. It’s one of those “of course we should be able to do that” kinds of things, but to have it just one mouse click away (assuming you’re set up to run WebGL; if not, go here).


Tags: , , ,

The demo I made for the Interactive Rendering course actually runs on my phone (Samsung Galaxy S3). My course assistant found it runs on her HTC phone, too. Good luck hitting the up-arrow on my phone, like the documentation on the screen wants me to do… (I should fix that.) It runs only on Firefox, from what I can tell.

Update: works in Chrome Beta for Android.

Anyway, I’m impressed that my phone can do this at all. It does take a good long while to download and run, but still. 44 frames per second – not bad! Go three.js and WebGL. Oh, and here’s a little video.

click the picture below to go directly to the demo.

Tags: , ,

Three.js is one of a number of free WebGL libraries. First released in April 2010, it has become pretty popular, and includes a huge number of demos. I wanted to know more about its origins, so interviewed its creator, Ricardo Cabello, aka mr.doob, who lives in Spain.

* What is your background: your education, your current job?

My education was a bit of a disaster. I went to primary school, in the later years there I was also going to an academy to learn to draw comics. Then I started studying electronics in secondary school and later moved to arts. It wasn’t really the right time for me to study so I quit before going to University.

During all these years I was fairly active on the Demoscene and that’s where it all comes from. However, back then I was not a programmer, I only created the graphics, and came up with ideas for demos and stuff.

Currently I’m a freelancer doing web development, mainly working for Google Data Arts Team.

* Why did you create three.js?

There were many reasons. I was always curious to know what I could do with my own 3d engine. I also thought it was a good challenge for me. I had been tinkering with one since my ActionScript days, learning the basics and slowly figuring out the right architecture.

However, the main motivation probably was the fact that, back in the Demoscene days, everyone were doing their own 3d engines that were only used for one or two demos. For the next demo they would create a new engine. I always found that a bit wasteful so I thought of doing one that others could reuse.

So now I’m trying to build the kind of engine and tools I wish I had back then.

* How did it get to be so popular?

I don’t know. Compared to the ones that were popping up at the time, while not the most performant, maybe it was the one with the friendliest API and the easiest to extend. Thanks to that, it now has tons of features and handy code sitting in the examples folder.

* Do you have a sense of how many users there are?

Not really…

* How many people contribute code?

There tends to be around 3 active people. There are many others that do small random contributions/fixes: 171 in total so far.

* Is three.js’s support and extension a part of your job, a hobby, or both?

I guess both :)

* Where’s three.js going? Do you have a plan, or does it depend on user contributions?

There is no clear plan. If anything, I just want the web to be more demoscene-ish. More realtime/interactive stuff and less videos.

* One problem with having users is that the API gets locked into place. Do you have any plans to change any APIs and deprecate older classes? For example, “CubeGeometry” is misnamed, since the method actually creates boxes, not just cubes.

That’s probably the biggest problem. The API is still not locked and we break backwards-compatibility from time to time. There is a wiki page that documents all the changes.

However, we try to add deprecated messages here and there for some releases and try to avoid breakage. In the case of CubeGeometry, we would rename it to BoxGeometry while still keeping a CubeGeometry class that would return a BoxGeometry when instantiated plus throwing a warning on the console.

I think the API is getting there, though. It’s starting to feel right. The only parts I’m not done with are loaders and materials.

* What sort of technical challenges have you encountered? Does all three.js code work on pretty much all browsers and platforms (ignoring Internet Explorer)?

There have been many challenges, starting with finding the best coding patterns to use in JavaScript to avoid garbage collection. We still struggle with that. Next is finding the most useful data structures for geometry and materials. Then how to pass all that to WebGL in a performant way. We still have a lot to do there. But luckily this is all under-the-hood stuff that most users won’t even notice.

As for compatibility, yes, we try to support as many platforms as possible.

* In the area of interactive rendering, what’s the biggest surprise to you over the past ten years? Is there any new capability or platform or social phenomenon that has stood out in your mind?

I guess the fact that I’ve been following the demoscene for years has rendered me insensitive about these things… I remember loving Google Body (now Zygote Body) because it showed how 3D could be actually useful as a presentation medium. You couldn’t grasp the data in the same way if the interface was 2D.

* What do you think is the biggest problem facing the field of interactive rendering at this point?

Lack of WebGL support on Safari for iOS and Chrome for Android. As soon as those browsers add support for it I can see this properly taking off.

* Which way is up, the +Y or +Z axis?

Y is up. If you’re consistent with the 2D graphics world (X right, Y up (well… down)) then the missing axis is Z which becomes depth.

Tags: ,

« Older entries