Webgl vs. third-party plugin (unity3d), the best option in the browser

Question

I was tasked with rendering and manipulating 3d objects in a browser and I really need a reliable application. The research I did shows two main options. I can use the new webgl tool in html5. Or I can use a browser plugin like unity3d (I'm sure there are others, and are equivalent for this question). (Are there any other options that I'm missing?) My application needs are pretty standardized, however these are the tricks:

(1) The most important part is the resolution of the scene. I need as many polygons / points as I can get. I want, I hope, 1 million polygons / points, 10 million polygons / points, 50 million polygons / points? What is really possible?

(2) The scene will be pretty static, I will load my scene and then just want to navigate around it and explore it. I do not need constant changes in my scene.

Weighing the pros and cons, I see the disadvantage of webgl as I don't have IE support (yet). And using the unity of user inconvenience, forcing them to install the plugin (which I see as a huge barrier). If you remove them, is there a difference in performance between the two? Will I have more polygons than another? I assume that they are the same since they both have direct access to the same equipment on the machine.

Any experience or thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated ......

Answer 1

WebGL is capable of displaying lots and lots of geometry as long as you draw it intelligently. So is Unity. The number of polygons will be a pretty controversial issue, especially if your scene is static.

What you really want to consider more than rendering speed are factors such as tool chains and user accessibility. WebGL has a fast-growing community, but not much in the way of mature tools. If you need commercial support, Unity might be better. As you pointed out, WebGL also does not have IE support, but even in browsers that support it, you will not be able to access it if your video card is blacklisted . However, if for some reason you decide to avoid the plugins, then your choice is already made, right?

WebGL has an undeniable "geeky cool" factor, but it can be completely lost to your target audience. It is also worth considering that Unity will be sufficiently game-oriented, which may or may not be good, given your needs. WebGL is a more general, but lower level.

As for the other alternatives, Flash 11 has Stage3D, which I heard is very capable, and Silverlight has Molehill, which I heard almost nothing about (sorry!). Obviously, both are plug-centric, but if you're on the fence, then you should probably just take a look at them.

Answer 2

Unity will give you more options, even in terms of performance, than WebGL. This is due to the fact that Unity already has optimization for drawing large scenes (culling, batch processing). In WebGL, you may need to write most of this manually at this point (unless there are solid WebGL libraries that I have not seen) to get the same performance. Getting compatible models and textures in Unity is also easier compared to WebGL right now (it's about the maturity of the tools).

Regarding the lack of need for a plugin, Unity at some point in the near future will release Flash 11 exporter , which will eliminate the need for a Unity plugin (depending on your scene).

Answer 3

Have you seen the Burster plugin? It is open source, it works as a unity, but it opens files from Blender - the best 3d editor :) here is the site: http://geta3d.com