Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!cadovax!keithd From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: IFF for 3D packages? Message-ID: <1896@cadovax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Dec-87 15:00:14 EST Article-I.D.: cadovax.1896 Posted: Tue Dec 1 15:00:14 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Dec-87 02:39:38 EST Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) Organization: Contel Business Systems, Torrance, CA Lines: 86 References: In article mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: >It wouldn't be hard at all to adopt such a standard. Everybody need >only offer IFF capability with the next release of their package, >with backwards compatability for the old format. I wish it were so easy. It would seem the only way to be standard is to encode in ASCII floating point, as there is no standard binary floating point format. Then you have the problem that some packages work with polygons, others only with triangles. There's also the problem that some manufacturers wish to keep their schemes proprietary. You ought to see what a mess the compressed animation standard has been going through. Anyone working on a MOVIE! to IFF ANIM converter? I'd sure like to use one of those right now. And the MOVIE! format may be proprietary. No matter who you talk to, everyone seems to have a different opinion of the value of various animation compression schemes. ("well, it's ok, but mines better!"). There seems to be one way that efforts for standardization MUST proceed for us to get anywhere. The standards must be WELL DOCUMENTED, and WELL DISTRIBUTED. For distribution, start with Commodore. You can't standardize on something if you don't have a supporter who's willing to document and work to get a standard approved. Unfortunately, most developers are so busy trying to out-compete each other, they haven't got time or inclination to worry about standardization. The IFF standards have bought the Amiga a lot of capabilities you don't see with other machines. A lot of programs couldn't exist if it weren't for standard image and sound files. And the standards aren't perfect, IFF images could be compressed better, 8SVX sample files could better support octaves that aren't simply reconstructions of the same sample, etc. True, standards usually mean standardized mediocrity, as the state of the art is changing fast enough to obsolete anything that's been around long enough to be documented. And at times, proprietary solutions are a way for developer to protect his investment in his software package, or protect a future market for his own follow on products that would otherwise be filled by a competitors products. I figure if a developer has to do that, it is a sign that he is insecure with his ability to develop competitive products, and is resorting to a lock-in strategy that will keep you buying his products anyway. Still, he will not be able to keep up with a group of his competitors, if they are banding together with standardization and present a ultimate modular solution to the user that is a synergy of all of their talents. Imagine if you bought a CD music album produced by Sony's new CBS label, that could only be played back on Sony decks. And figuring that Sony has big names under contract such as Springsteen, Michael Jackson etc., we could all be buying Sony decks if we want to listen to such music. A&M could team up with some other CD manufacturer, and we'd all end up with 15 different decks to be able to listen to the music we want to hear. And jeez, we have a big market for DAT decks that allow us to convert to a common format. If we're a DAT manufacturer, we're seeing dollar signs. If we stuck only with Sony, we'd only have Sony's music choices, and with only A&M we'd only have theirs. Even if we bought both a Sony and an A&M format player, we could listen to both, but we may not be able to create a continuous stack of CD's from both families that we could listen to in a single setting. We've lost a lot of functionality, and it's cost us lots of extra bucks. Standards do buy functionality, and provide for synergy, that can sometimes not be had any other way. One thing that might help, is to keep the idea of standardization in high esteem, and perhaps particularly when reviewing products. We should applaud EA and Aegis for their standardization efforts, if nothing else, and continue to pressure other companies with questions like "what are you doing about standardization". If the answer is "nothing", let them know that you disapprove (assuming you do). It is also important to realize that if everyone stuck to standards, products like Foust's would be unecessary. It would be easy to develop a big market for hundreds of conversion programs if that is how you like to use your Amiga. You developers out there may see gold in the proliferation of non-standard products out there. And if noone makes noise about standards, everyone will be paying $29.95 (or whatever) every time you want to merge data from one application to another. The standardization efforts on the Amiga, to date, have been one of the better "features" of the machine, in my estimation. Let's try to keep from losing that particular feature if possible. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170