On 02/09/12 10:39 AM, Chris Lee wrote:
The largest problem I see with this is offering a 3D
that is free and (somewhat) easy to use. I know some exist, but they are
not nearly as friendly as Solidworks or Pro e. secondly, we would need to
offer a free viewer, so that they could be accessed from Wikipedia articles
or other projects. These are huge development barriers, as we barely have
resources for comparatively much less demanding softwares.
Creating a 3D model of a screw is one thing that could be beneficial for
someone creating some type of assembly for school or work, but to create a
3D model of a sculpture; how could we verify its proportions?
I like the concept, but it is very far from the plain text, html, js that
runs virtually everything we work on in Wikimedia.
I remember such an idea crossing my mind at Wikimania Taipei in the wake
of Raoul Weiler's talk, and visiting the National Museum there where a
bowl in a glass case had some inscriptions all around that were
impossible to see in full because one couldn't see the back. It's all
well beyond my personal technical abilities, but it struck me as
something that could be very useful for representing museum artifacts.
(I tried to go to a presentation about something similar for the mining
industry, but after driving more than an hour to get there they had to
cancel because a car had run into a power pole and knocked out the
electricity in the whole neighborhood for the whole afternoon.) I
didn't follow up after that.
I don't think that maintaining proportions is a problem. These things
already exist in architectural programs, medical imaging and building
scenic environments for video games. A simple object can be completely
photographed by four cameras in a tetrahedral pattern around it. For the
viewer 3D-printing would be less important that being able turn and
otherwise manipulate the object on screen.