Hey @dubois ,
No, I don’t think so. My stance is relatively simple:
- I don’t think this will benefit those that are trying to learn, instead it would benefit those that have commercial needs and years and years of experience instead.
- This would not be maintained by anyone except for me pretty much, again, because of complexity
As it related to three.js specifically, the architecture is drastically different, so it doesn’t really fit.
But the main thing is that this is intended to be a commercial product at the end of the day, so open-sourcing would not align with that.
I still think there’s a lot of value in just seeing the tech run in the browser.
A lot of the times you think to yourself: “I don’t know if this technique would even be viable or not”. Then you spend weeks prototyping, only to arrive at the answer “no”, or you arrive at something that kind of works, but you give up because you don’t believe that you could get to something truly viable.
Seeing a complete solution eliminates a lot of the guesswork. For example, Epic’s Nanite has been pretty much solved in late 90s and early 2000s, I know this because I researched the topic extensively when working on my own implementation. But why hasn’t anyone made a commercial version of this before? Because it’s a complex thing that would take a large time expenditure and it’s not clear at all whether it’s viable at the end of the day.
Once Epic published their own work, suddenly you see versions of it popping up left and right, because guesswork is eliminated.
Anyway, I do hope this this will serve as an inspiration and a proof of viability to others.