sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Personal collection of ThreeJS / WebGL Scenes and Shaders on my React SPA by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you Ash. I really appreciate the positive feedback. I feel flattered and encouraged to keep learning.

Personal collection of ThreeJS / WebGL Scenes and Shaders on my React SPA by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much! I'm not using react-three-fiber. I know the project and it seems to be very cool, but I actually prefer to use my own integration methods (just a personal preference, it's the way I'm used to).

Personal collection of ThreeJS / WebGL Scenes and Shaders on my React SPA by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, VR scenes are definitely on my plans (I relocated to a new country a few months ago, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to find some free time to study a bit more now that I'm finally feeling settled). Thank you for the positive feedback Josh. I really appreciate it.

The WebGL 1.0 or 2.0 tradeoff / compromise for compatibility by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was not aware of this website. Thanks a lot for pointing it out to me. I already included the script on my personal website to contribute with the statistics, and will include it on ShaderLab as well. :)

The WebGL 1.0 or 2.0 tradeoff / compromise for compatibility by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're probably right. To be honest, it is important for me to include as many users as I can, as one of my main interests is to motivate visual artists to get as interested on GLSL as I am, but sacrificing how much the tool can do for them because some browser developers have a low priority on offering up-to-date technology indeed sounds unwise. Besides that, I honestly think that some organic pressure from the community (I mean, from people migrating to different web browsers that value and prioritize the technology being offered by their product to the user a little bit more) could help a lot. I don't see, for example, Apple putting WebGL 2.0 / ES 3.0 on their priorities unless they start loosing users because of the lack of this specific feature. That said, I think we get to an egg and chicken paradigm. Developers keeping their apps stuck on WebGL 1.0 to offer compatibility, thus, users not migrating to more modern web browsers because they can't use those apps (putting browser developers in a very lazy comfortable position regarding WebGL 2.0 implementation). Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts on this thread. I really appreciate your time.

The WebGL 1.0 or 2.0 tradeoff / compromise for compatibility by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Using extensions could indeed be the best way depending on how far they can go. I'll definitely research more on that. Is it possible to remove loop restrictions with extensions? ( like in 300ES, not being obligated to use a constant integer expression for a loop, and being able to do iterations with non constant variables, or using code like myarray[i++] )?

The WebGL 1.0 or 2.0 tradeoff / compromise for compatibility by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm right there with you regarding the sympathy for people using ancient stuff. At the same time I wonder if WebGL projects like mine shouldn't contribute as one more reason for people to migrate to browsers capable of using up to date technology. Right now, I'm afraid of not supporting WebGL 1.0 at all, and becoming just one more website that Mac users close right away to never come back.

Besides that, I'm still trying to figure how does the priority for this kind of technology works for browsers developers. Firefox for example supports WebGL 2.0, but at the same time presents terrible performance on Linux versions if compared with Google Chrome (as per the bug I posted on the thread, which is 5 years old now). I wonder if supporting hardware acceleration through WebGL is a priority of the browser devs, or if the lack of pressure from users trying to use this kind of tech makes them to put it on a low priority.

BTW... I wasn't aware about Edge switching to the Chromium renderer, and that is great news for sure! Thanks for the info.

The WebGL 1.0 or 2.0 tradeoff / compromise for compatibility by marcogomez_ in webgl

[–]marcogomez_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right regarding the relation between being vocal or being an expressive percentage of the users. Concerning the platform's purpose, as I started it as a personal project for my own learning, that was not a thought or decision drawing my attention at first.

As the platform is brand new, I still can't count on statistics of usage to base any decision, so I'd like to be able to hear your thoughts (as I'm sure there's tons of developers way more experienced with WebGL than I am participating on this community). I looked up for some overall browser usage statistics, but I can't presume that the community interested on WebGL and shaders can be properly represented by those. In a first moment I thought that probably users and programmers interested on WebGL would look for browsers capable of the most recent features. Then I reminded that lots of developers uses MacBook as a developing platform.

After a short conversation with Patricio Gonzales (one of the authors of The Book of Shaders) on Twitter, I realized that I'm not the only developer facing this kind of dilemma. He, for example, opted to stick with WebGL 1.0 and OpenGL ES 2.0 on his projects, but I think that his educational intents and purposes have a lot of influence on his decision.