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