Thanks for summarizing what I’ve been mulling over in my head.
I’m going to comment+close the Issue with something to this effect.
Andrew.
On May 1, 2015, at 11:29 PM, MichaelAtOz oz.at.michael@gmail.com wrote:
My 2c worth is that we will need something to support multiple
materials/colours real soon, colour printing is already a reality on
Shapeways etc, and with things like the Diamond head, let alone multi-head
printers now, will have demand for multi-stuff now.
Given AMF export is implemented in OpenSCAD and in slicers, should the focus
be on implementing multi-stuff-ability in OpenSCAD using AMF, rather than
expanding to other formats and still not be able to make multi-stuff?
Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525p12543.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
On 05/02/2015 05:29 AM, MichaelAtOz wrote:
Given AMF export is implemented in OpenSCAD and in slicers, should the focus
be on implementing multi-stuff-ability in OpenSCAD using AMF, rather than
expanding to other formats and still not be able to make multi-stuff?
Right, I agree the functionality would be much more useful than just
another import/export format. But then I think the effort spent on a
simple exporter would be not too big, I guess the biggest thing is to
find a nice cross platform solution to read/write the ZIP file (which
would come in useful for AMF handling too).
Still, I guess the best strategy for now is to sit back, fetch some
popcorn and watch what happens :-).
ciao,
Torsten.
A skim through http://bit.ly/1KqwpFU suggests that the "royalty-free patent
license" requires a "conformant application" to be produced, and I have no
doubt that "conformant" will require DRM, so that a 3MF derivative without
DRM would be subject to lawsuits and monetization.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525p12755.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
The DRM relevant features of the spec are all optional, the only required
part is the 3D model. So I think a conformant implementation need not
process any DRM.
I understand there is great suspicion of Microsoft, but in my reading 3MF
is a genuinely open spec, there are no strings attached. It actually makes
clear it is royalty free, unlike AMF. It also can be freely downloaded,
unlike AMF which costs $49 and you have to agree to inspection of your
premises and computer systems by a third party to ensure you are complying
with the copyright (i.e. not made ANY copies), otherwise the agreement is
cancelled and you must destroy all copies.
Personally I find it a lot easier to implement 3MF than AMF.
On 27 May 2015 at 08:02, frankv drifter.frank@gmail.com wrote:
A skim through http://bit.ly/1KqwpFU suggests that the "royalty-free
patent
license" requires a "conformant application" to be produced, and I have no
doubt that "conformant" will require DRM, so that a 3MF derivative without
DRM would be subject to lawsuits and monetization.
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525p12755.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
The only version of the AMF spec that I've studied is the 0.47 draft from
this URL:
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/AMF_V0.47.pdf
If there are substantive differences in the $49 version, I have no way of
finding about them. The legal risks involved in obtaining the actual
standard sound too high. If I create a context diff comparing 0.47 with
1.0, I'm breaking the law. On the other hand, most of the other people
implementing AMF are probably also basing their implementation on V0.47, so
whatever text happens to be in the pay version of the AMF standard probably
doesn't matter all that much.
I agree that Microsoft has done a better job, in making their standard
freely available and explicitly royalty free.
On 27 May 2015 at 05:28, Bob Cousins bobcousins42@googlemail.com wrote:
The DRM relevant features of the spec are all optional, the only required
part is the 3D model. So I think a conformant implementation need not
process any DRM.
I understand there is great suspicion of Microsoft, but in my reading 3MF
is a genuinely open spec, there are no strings attached. It actually makes
clear it is royalty free, unlike AMF. It also can be freely downloaded,
unlike AMF which costs $49 and you have to agree to inspection of your
premises and computer systems by a third party to ensure you are complying
with the copyright (i.e. not made ANY copies), otherwise the agreement is
cancelled and you must destroy all copies.
Personally I find it a lot easier to implement 3MF than AMF.
On 27 May 2015 at 08:02, frankv drifter.frank@gmail.com wrote:
A skim through http://bit.ly/1KqwpFU suggests that the "royalty-free
patent
license" requires a "conformant application" to be produced, and I have no
doubt that "conformant" will require DRM, so that a 3MF derivative without
DRM would be subject to lawsuits and monetization.
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525p12755.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
Von: "doug moen" doug@moens.org
On the other hand, most of the other people implementing AMF are probably
also basing their implementation on V0.47, so whatever text happens to be
in the pay version of the AMF standard probably doesn't matter all that much.
Actually there are some details that are fairly important for interoperability
across different programs. In general the file structure is pretty well
explained in Wikipedia and most information (especially the XML schema is
freely available).
Also Hod Lipson, technical contact and ASTM F42 Task group chair is pretty
helpful and also answers specific questions in the google group. Unfortunately
he failed to convince others to make the specification freely available.
This is likey an ASTM/ISO issue and not related to the actual specification,
but still it's hugely annoying.
From what I know, both cura and slic3r implementations are not based on the
released spec version. Last time I looked, the netfabb implementation did
not follow the specification regarding the actual file storage when using
ZIPed format.
On 27 May 2015 at 05:28, Bob Cousins <bobcousins42@googlemail.com[bobcousins42@googlemail.com]> wrote:
> Personally I find it a lot easier to implement 3MF than AMF.
I can't see much difference there and AMF is pretty trivial when ignoring
the curved triangles (where I'm still not convinced that's extremely useful,
especially due to the fixed 5 level recursion, but I might be wrong here
as I did not dig into the details).
And basic AMF support is already implemented, the export is included in
the release version. The restrictions are mainly coming from limitations
present in current OpenSCAD and are not related to AMF.
ciao,
Torsten.
Digging out this thread as there is some good and some bad news :-)
The github project https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf looks promising
as it's providing the library with a 2-clause BSD license and it does
support compiling with GCC.
(Interesting note... the code is copyright by Netfabb / Microsoft)
That's the good news.
The bad news is, that the GCC part is missing some essential parts,
mainly the Reader and Writer classes. So currently it's basically just
the data model which would be usable (as far as I can tell after digging
a bit yesterday).
Still, that's a good start and hopefully the missing parts will
appear eventually.
ciao,
Torsten.
Well, an XML reader/writer is cake to drop in if you wanted to; I suspect
the non-gcc part made liberal use of Windows-only stuff.
--Joseph Lenox
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Torsten Paul Torsten.Paul@gmx.de wrote:
Digging out this thread as there is some good and some bad news :-)
The github project https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf looks promising
as it's providing the library with a 2-clause BSD license and it does
support compiling with GCC.
(Interesting note... the code is copyright by Netfabb / Microsoft)
That's the good news.
The bad news is, that the GCC part is missing some essential parts,
mainly the Reader and Writer classes. So currently it's basically just
the data model which would be usable (as far as I can tell after digging
a bit yesterday).
Still, that's a good start and hopefully the missing parts will
appear eventually.
ciao,
Torsten.
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
On 07/23/2015 07:38 PM, Joseph Lenox wrote:
Well, an XML reader/writer is cake to drop in if you wanted to; I suspect
the non-gcc part made liberal use of Windows-only stuff.
Sort-of, yes. It uses the OPC stuff which 3MF is based on, so it gets
most of the XML / ZIP / Packaging infrastructure for free.
(https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd371025%28v=vs.85%29.aspx)
They did model the C++ interface after COM but according to the docs
it's only "A COM-like DLL Interface" which would work without the COM
magic.
ciao,
Torsten.
And another update regarding 3MF support...
The official library now has support for GCC compilation and it
actually does read and write 3MF files :-).
So basic support is possible (mainly limited by what OpenSCAD
can handle / produce right now). There seem to be some issues
with some of the example files, I guess it will be interesting
to see if there's any feedback for the bug report.
( https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf/issues/7 )
Interesting note: Ultimaker joined the 3MF Consortium last
December.
https://ultimaker.com/press/22-ultimaker-announces-joining-3mf-consortium-as-founding-member
ciao,
Torsten.