Comment by woodrowbarlow

3 hours ago

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.

Yes, you can render on server and if you include CSS transitions/animations, you get an animated 3d render without the need for JS !

We haven't built it yet, but its on the roadmap

  • I'm all for experimentation but getting rid of JS in this case almost certainly results in worse performance. You're trading a bit of load time for significantly slower runtime/rendering.

    • Huh.... why would a CSS animation of a transform be slower than JS? This is strictly for the "CSS transform" case ofc - obviously pure webgl would be way faster.

      I'm having a hard time seeing it. My experiments with CSS animation have always performed much better in CSS than JS (again, excluding it being pure webgl/canvas JS).

      And ofc there's the nice bonus that it works if I haven't chosen to trust and whitelist their website for JS yet.

      2 replies →