Show HN: A CSS 3D Engine (no WebGL)
23 points by rofko 4 hours ago | 10 comments
Rohansi 2 hours ago
But why not use WebGL? It's widely available, more efficient, and can render at a much higher quality.
replyrofko 2 hours ago
Hi there! This is not trying to be a three.js replacement, scenes with huge polygon counts naturally should render in canvas.
replyFor me, the interesting case is smaller low-poly or voxel scenes where loading a full 3D stack may be overkill, and where keeping the scene in DOM/CSS gives you easier integration with normal layout, styling, events, etc. Once you have the HTML, you don't even need to load the library to render a static model.
Also, part of the experiment is testing the browser’s limits and getting a clearer sense of where this approach works, where it breaks down, and what the tradeoffs are.
Cheers!
woodrowbarlow 19 minutes 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.
reply
Would you recommend this for hacking around or not?
Whereas THREE.js or webgl is purpose-built for realtime animated 3d scenes.