Show HN: A CSS 3D Engine (no WebGL)(github.com)
github.com
Show HN: A CSS 3D Engine (no WebGL)
https://github.com/LayoutitStudio/polycss
28 comments
But why not use WebGL? It's widely available, more efficient, and can render at a much higher quality.
https://polycss.com/gallery/?model=2843066616
https://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_animation_multiple
https://polycss.com/gallery/?model=2843066616
https://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_animation_multiple
Hi there! This is not trying to be a three.js replacement, scenes with huge polygon counts naturally should render in canvas.
For 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!
For 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!
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.
You can have a dynamic camera with 3D CSS only and no JS. The trick is move the scene instead of the "camera". CSS Doom uses this technique (although unlike the project I'm working on, it relies heavily on JS for the interaction logic).
Then there's "minecraft in CSS" which uses invisible form elements for camera rotation and works with no JS at all.
https://benjaminaster.com/css-minecraft/
It's been on HN before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44100148 )
https://benjaminaster.com/css-minecraft/
It's been on HN before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44100148 )
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
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.
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.
I meant slower vs. WebGL rendering, which requires JS. Each triangle is rendered as a DOM node. There can be thousands of triangles in a single model.
The gallery has been updated with more models. Compare the same model in PolyCSS vs. Three.js:
https://polycss.com/gallery/?model=205023689 (13 fps)
https://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_animation_skinning_morph (60 fps)
The gallery has been updated with more models. Compare the same model in PolyCSS vs. Three.js:
https://polycss.com/gallery/?model=205023689 (13 fps)
https://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_animation_skinning_morph (60 fps)
Oh. Sure, that is pretty obvious. A triangle in webgl is so much more lightweight than building it out of DOM elements but this was more about "if one is going to use this CSS system, why not support a pure CSS viewing mode" - which right now, it does not - rotation requires JS and is pretty stuttery. I was thinking it should actually be a bit smoother if there was a "toggle on/off rotation using a CSS animation" option. Plus, something like that could easily be done in pure CSS if JS was disabled, which would make the output all the more accessible and offer a good usecase.
It could also be helpful in scenarios where JS is restricted - emails? iframes? bulleting board user content? Dunno. Trying to come up with some that aren't just "nemo was running umatrix and doesn't trust your site just yet"
It could also be helpful in scenarios where JS is restricted - emails? iframes? bulleting board user content? Dunno. Trying to come up with some that aren't just "nemo was running umatrix and doesn't trust your site just yet"
It's like transcoding a video into a GIF so that it can render everywhere. It will probably work but it's not really a serious option.
well, people do in fact still do that. or APNG or WEBP.
But, all I was focused on was the initial comment was on if you were going to use this particular tool, it'd be nice if it had a pure CSS rotate mode, which makes a fair amount of sense given "working without JS" is probably one of the few significant use cases anyway (unless, you reeeeeally need your model to be tightly integrated into the DOM for some reason).
So, saying that CSS would be worse than JS as a feature for this project did not really make sense. We weren't talking about "should the project even exist" (I feel it should and it's awesome ;) )
So, saying that CSS would be worse than JS as a feature for this project did not really make sense. We weren't talking about "should the project even exist" (I feel it should and it's awesome ;) )
That is a good observation, being able to do a 3D animation only with HTML+CSS means that it works on js blocked websites!
Of course that the animations won't map to all the animations you can manage with js.
Of course that the animations won't map to all the animations you can manage with js.
Same thought. Even that simple Apple on the front pages runs < 60fps on my M1 Mac. Rendering 3D objects with CSS is like rendering Doom in Excel Cells. Yes, you can do it. No you should not do it except as a joke/curiosity.
Always thought it would be cool to make an RTS or simple city builder game in the browser.
Would you recommend this for hacking around or not?
Would you recommend this for hacking around or not?
I think the answer is no, as this is a creative repurposing of css3d as a basis for a general 3d engine. That lets you put web content everywhere, even on the triangles of your teapot. Cool, but extravagant
Whereas THREE.js or webgl is purpose-built for realtime animated 3d scenes.
Whereas THREE.js or webgl is purpose-built for realtime animated 3d scenes.
What about https://terra.layoutit.com
It’s a wide range from an RTS to a simple city builder. I’d say “no” for the former and “maybe” for the latter. Perhaps try it for a couple of hours and see whether you like it or not.
The per-polygon DOM events are what make this more than a trick. Getting click handlers on individual faces in WebGL means raycasting. Here it's just onClick. For certain use cases that's the whole argument.
I give it 15 minutes before someone on here ports Doom
This reminds me of the 3D maps in corru.observer, which also only used CSS transforms
It's cool. The performance is good but why not use WebGL, any reason?
Does it support per-pixel depth test? Or it just sorts polygons?
Is this inspired by the old famo.us work?
wow thats cool
Which is a long way of saying I appreciate how challenging this probably was to figure out. I love stuff like this.