OTOY Forums

If you are planning to implement both then great The more options the better IMHO, opening up to a wider audience has got to be a good thing.

Hi guys,

If we decide to implement COLLADA,
what version should we implement ?

i understand there's currently version 1.3 and 1.4.

It would be handy if people could post here and explain which version your 3d application can export to.
I'd like to have a short overview of the versions that are supported so we can decide which version to implement.

I don't think it's forward compatible, although i'm not sure.
Need to do some more reading

Radiance

First, COLLADA has version 1.5.0, too.

I need COLLADA mainly for SketchUp, because all other modeling tools i use, have good .obj support.

After reading that Wikipedia web-page, i have found the following:

Google Earth (release 4) has adopted COLLADA (1.4) as its native format for describing the objects populating the earth. Users can simply drag and drop a COLLADA (.dae) file on top of the virtual Earth. Alternatively, Google SketchUp Pro can also be used to create.kmz files, a zip file containing a KML file, a COLLADA (.dae) file, and all the texture images.

That means for me that Octane needs support for the 1.4 (1.4.0 or 1.4.1) version of COLLADA.

The details for the compatibility between 1.4.0 and 1.4.1 can be found here. (PDF)

so sketchup is 1.4 ?

great, if others can report about other 3d apps, that will definately help us

Radiance

radiance,

I use Modo and it support Collada 1.4.1, so does blender and Softimage XSI - i think most DCC app current support 1.4.1 even though 1.5 is the most recent version.


edit:sketchup 7.1(current version) support 1.4.1....according to google

Yes. At least that is written in that official press release.

There are mentioned other interesting applications as SOFTIMAGE|XSI, Maya, Max, Blender, Houdini and Unreal Engine 3.

The press release is old, though. Thus, please see for yourself if something is not changed meanwhile.

If you are aiming for a low end (cost) market its best to provide formats for the low cost 3d editors. Most people cant afford autocad, 3dsmax, maxell, maya etc.

Blender
Sketchup pro
3d bonsai (awsome little package)
Wings 3d

A format they all have in common.

Between that lot maybe a few million users. ( the expensive packages wont sell as fast as the low end ones) Numbers dictate one thing but affordability in large numbers is easier to market to than high end users only)

How many people have triple SLI with water coolers (not many)

How many people have mid range pcs (216 core) pcs .....far more.

From a business point of view your software market should coincide within the same market level and you will sell far more.
Don't get me wrong the more formats you support the better but for now priority would be for the low end 3d software editors.

My 2 cents

although i'm not %100 decided yet,
we are going to implement both COLLADA and FBX in the short term.

i'm just not sure yet which one we'll start on first.

Radiance

Collada...

So I can post in every sketchup forum on earth about Octane

Im just kidding, I use OBJ myself so for now I don't need those files formats
But I think Collada would make more buzz and good advertising than FBX

radiance wrote:although i'm not %100 decided yet,
we are going to implement both COLLADA and FBX in the short term.

i'm just not sure yet which one we'll start on first.

Radiance

Just flip a coin, heads = collada, tails = FBX