Hi there! This is not trying to be a three.js replacement, scenes with huge polygon counts naturally should render in canvas.
For me, the interesting case is smaller low-poly or voxel scenes where loading a full 3D stack may be overkill, and where keeping the scene in DOM/CSS gives you easier integration with normal layout, styling, events, etc. Once you have the HTML, you don't even need to load the library to render a static model.
Also, part of the experiment is testing the browser’s limits and getting a clearer sense of where this approach works, where it breaks down, and what the tradeoffs are.
ha, so you could run this on the server and send down a page with no javascript at all? (with, i assume, a static camera only.) that's fun. i mean, you could also just render the model to an image at that point, but still, this is neat.
You can have a dynamic camera with 3D CSS only and no JS. The trick is move the scene instead of the "camera". CSS Doom uses this technique (although unlike the project I'm working on, it relies heavily on JS for the interaction logic).
I'm all for experimentation but getting rid of JS in this case almost certainly results in worse performance. You're trading a bit of load time for significantly slower runtime/rendering.
Same thought. Even that simple Apple on the front pages runs < 60fps on my M1 Mac. Rendering 3D objects with CSS is like rendering Doom in Excel Cells. Yes, you can do it. No you should not do it except as a joke/curiosity.
It’s a wide range from an RTS to a simple city builder. I’d say “no” for the former and “maybe” for the latter. Perhaps try it for a couple of hours and see whether you like it or not.
I think the answer is no, as this is a creative repurposing of css3d as a basis for a general 3d engine. That lets you put web content everywhere, even on the triangles of your teapot. Cool, but extravagant
Whereas THREE.js or webgl is purpose-built for realtime animated 3d scenes.
But why not use WebGL? It's widely available, more efficient, and can render at a much higher quality.
https://polycss.com/gallery/?model=2843066616
https://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_animation_multiple
Hi there! This is not trying to be a three.js replacement, scenes with huge polygon counts naturally should render in canvas.
For me, the interesting case is smaller low-poly or voxel scenes where loading a full 3D stack may be overkill, and where keeping the scene in DOM/CSS gives you easier integration with normal layout, styling, events, etc. Once you have the HTML, you don't even need to load the library to render a static model.
Also, part of the experiment is testing the browser’s limits and getting a clearer sense of where this approach works, where it breaks down, and what the tradeoffs are.
Cheers!
ha, so you could run this on the server and send down a page with no javascript at all? (with, i assume, a static camera only.) that's fun. i mean, you could also just render the model to an image at that point, but still, this is neat.
You can have a dynamic camera with 3D CSS only and no JS. The trick is move the scene instead of the "camera". CSS Doom uses this technique (although unlike the project I'm working on, it relies heavily on JS for the interaction logic).
Yes, you can render on server and if you include CSS transitions/animations, you get an animated 3d render without the need for JS !
We haven't built it yet, but its on the roadmap
I'm all for experimentation but getting rid of JS in this case almost certainly results in worse performance. You're trading a bit of load time for significantly slower runtime/rendering.
Same thought. Even that simple Apple on the front pages runs < 60fps on my M1 Mac. Rendering 3D objects with CSS is like rendering Doom in Excel Cells. Yes, you can do it. No you should not do it except as a joke/curiosity.
Always thought it would be cool to make an RTS or simple city builder game in the browser.
Would you recommend this for hacking around or not?
It’s a wide range from an RTS to a simple city builder. I’d say “no” for the former and “maybe” for the latter. Perhaps try it for a couple of hours and see whether you like it or not.
I think the answer is no, as this is a creative repurposing of css3d as a basis for a general 3d engine. That lets you put web content everywhere, even on the triangles of your teapot. Cool, but extravagant
Whereas THREE.js or webgl is purpose-built for realtime animated 3d scenes.
I give it 15 minutes before someone on here ports Doom
https://github.com/NielsLeenheer/cssDOOM
wow thats cool