Hi there! This is not trying to be a three.js replacement, scenes with huge polygon counts naturally should render in canvas.
replyFor 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.
replyYou 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).
replyYes, you can render on server and if you include CSS transitions/animations, you get an animated 3d render without the need for JS !
replyWe haven't built it yet, but its on the roadmap
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.
reply