I have a Silverlight app that uses Deep Zoom technology to allow users to zoom in to inspect models of the products my company produces.

Now, we want to be able to show off 3D models.

Silverlight now "supports" 3D, but only on Windows. This is a no-go for me, since Mac support is essential in our business.

Does anybody have any ideas on how to show off 3D models using Silverlight?

I did consider building an array of hundreds of separate images, all at different angles, and have a nice GUI to move between them in order to 'fake' the 3D, but that seems clunky.

Any help you guys can give is appreciated!

First, nice to meet a SL guy out there, its getting rarer to meet one. Second, my understanding is that true 3D ain't going to happen from your perspective. That's because you want, as i understand it, a Microsoft-approved technology. In 3D-land it would only be DirectX, and that is only on windows/xbox so no x-platformness for you. If you want true x-platform (i realized you were sold silverlight as x-platform) that would only be OpenGL/WebGL.

Other then chjosing WebGL, I think your best shot would be to find a JavaScript library (oops, sorry if I scared you), that would emulate 3D on a Canvas element. That way you'd be safe with IE9/10 and most other browsers (sorry no IE6/7/8).

Best wishes

EDIT: It occurred to me that you might find a c# library to do the same within Silverlight.

Would someone from the Silverlight team explain WhyTF (WTF) they are continuously blogging about something that is completely unrelated to Silverlight?

This is a sure sign that the nails have been hammered firmly into the Silverlight coffin, had they continued to pour resources as they said their would you would not be in the position you are in where like Windows Phone 7, developers are supporting Microsoft software that is less than two years old that is already obsolescent.

I needed to write a Lightswitch type application a month or so ago, but would not touch it with a bargepole, so went with something else. One of the key technologies in Visual Studio 2012 is already dead in the water.

Silverlight 3d seems to be gone because you can DX on the upcoming Windows Phone 8. So, my suggestion is to use Unreal Engine, which is more platform independent. Another reason you want DX instead of  Silverlight is due to performance. DX will be muh faster and use less battery, which is quite important for portable devices.

Then came Silverlight 5, and all of a sudden the platform independence was gone, along with some reliability (MultiScaleImage crashes when I use SL5, in SL4 it's just fine), so as it is, my app is stuck at SL4.

Kinda between a rock and a hard place, because there is just too much time invested in this app to go for a re-write in Flash for instance.

Awesome move, MS.

On the plus, I have found a Silverlight project that emulates the HTML5 Canvas, so I might be able to run WebGL on that.... will investigate and feed back.

Who is your target audience?

21 hours ago, vesuvius wrote

Would someone from the Silverlight team explain WhyTF (WTF) they are continuously blogging about something that is completely unrelated to Silverlight?

Because it's not unrelated.

Silverlight is deprecated for use in the browser, but lives on as one of the key technologies that you can use to write metro apps. Consequently, the Silverlight team have stopped blogging about SIlverlight for the web (because it's deprecated) and focus on talking about Silverlight for Metro (since that's what they've been working on).

I was going to second fanbaby's suggestion (the JS one, the first one is just insane), but if you are constrained to stay within SL then things are getting hairier. Silverlight 3D libraries will probably not get much love now that SL5 is out, but that's the most straightforward way to go. Good luck.

2 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

Because it's not unrelated.

Silverlight is deprecated for use in the browser, but lives on as one of the key technologies that you can use to write metro apps. Consequently, the Silverlight team have stopped blogging about Silverlight for the web (because it's deprecated) and focus on talking about Silverlight for Metro (since that's what they've been working on).

Silverlight to me was WPF/E, and the promise of a cross platform client was what it was all about. Microsoft seem to be trying to neutralize dissatisfaction with saying "It's .XAML, so its the same". Silverlight was quite different to WPF, even in the .XAML, with commands missing and things like the image libraries behaving completely differently.

Windows 8 is not about building web applications, which is what Silverlight was, so associating it with Metro is completely wrong, and Microsoft desperately trying to soften the blow for the thousands, if not millions of developers now left with brand new, but obsolescent code.

I would also like to add that it is tremendously difficult to get software to the point that it is stable, and even migrating .XAML platforms is fraught with difficulties, it is not as easy as flicking a switch, especially since you are already seriously narked off that you chose a Microsoft platform that was abandoned.

Do Microsoft really think their developer base is that idiotic, where you write a WPF app, port it to Silverlight, then Windows Phone 7, then after killing off all these platforms, they think you are eager to migrate to Windows 8 or Windows Phone 8, or even if you did nothing with them, will somehow start getting on the Metro bandwagon?

5 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

Silverlight for Metro (since that's what they've been working on).

This doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

41 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

This doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

All of Metro's XAML based witchcraft evolved out of Silverlight, although it's not branded as Silverlight to avoid confusing stuff.

The branding is WinRT .NET+XAML.

http://www.silverlightshow.net/news/SilverlightShow-Webinar-10-Things-Silverlight-Developers-Should-Know-About-Windows-8.aspx

1 hour ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

All of Metro's XAML based witchcraft evolved out of Silverlight, although it's not branded as Silverlight to avoid confusing stuff.

The branding is WinRT .NET+XAML.

http://www.silverlightshow.net/news/SilverlightShow-Webinar-10-Things-Silverlight-Developers-Should-Know-About-Windows-8.aspx

WinRT is a COM based runtime. It may be very source compatible with Silverlight, but it is by no means just a "rebranding" of Silverlight. 

9 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

WinRT is a COM based runtime. 

So is .NET.

WinRT+Xaml isn't a rebranding of Silverlight. It's an evolution of it.

for example:  http://unity3d.com/

19 hours ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

Silverlight to me was WPF/E, and the promise of a cross platform client was what it was all about. [...]

 

2 things:

1. if you believed Microsoft that SL was x-platfom, you deserve what you got
2. if you insisted instead on working with open stuff, you'd be better of now.

Microsoft, here's a free advice for you. Your problems today, I think, are the result of your addiction to licensing dough. It seems that that makes every depatment in Microsoft use tools from other departments exclusively. That makes it hard to find: 

1. A msft employee/presenter using google or chrome or a mac (to me that there makes most demos and tutorials, about html5 specifically, look funny right from the start)
2. MS software running on Linux/android
3. I cant come up with 3

That I think doomed Silverlight, since the only way for SL to thrive was if it was a truly open technology. Someone at Microsoft decided that's not to be.

Cohesiveness is usually good, but this whole situation, of being a cohesive company, will cause Microsoft with all of its departments to crash like a lead zeppelin. Sure, they are pulling in $ by the boat load, but if you don't see that Microsoft lost its relevancy i feel sorry for you. It turned out that not breaking Microsoft up turned out rather good for the world (from my POV of course).

Go learn HTML/CSS/JavaScript (you don't even need HTML5 and CSS3 for most scenarios), it's a big and confusing task, and getting more 'interesting' every day with new tools/libs/environments, but you will not waste your time and development $$ like you did with SL.

Also in the last few weeks, i came to the conclusion that XAML, which so many fanboys here tout (what word am i looking for?) as the crown jewels, is the clown jewels, it's a false god which will keep you in the dark for one more generation. Over and out

Yes go ahead and learn that.   Start learning on how to steer a horse and buggy too.  

Sorry,  but just because browsers like HTML and we keep trying to get browsers to do more does not mean the future of software programming will go this way.   This is a blip and cooler and smarter heads will prevail.   Microsoft has alot of internal strife on how it wants to move ahead and right now it has not figured it out yet.   But  HTML/JavaScript is not the future of application development.

Don't know about you, but for me everything i like/use comes inside of a browser (including this forum). Maybe the exception is text editors and IDEs, hopefully not for long, take a look at jsbin.com and the like. That doesn't mean that developing for the web is easy, just that it's here to stay. I don't think you be a developer without knowing these technologies inside out.

32 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

Facebook and forums are just time wasters.

Hey, where else would you get this advice: "XAML is one big waste of time just like Silverlight was"

That might, just might, save you big money

1 hour ago, fanbaby wrote

Hey, where else would you get this advice: "XAML is one big waste of time just like Silverlight was"

Under a bridge?

3 hours ago, fanbaby wrote

*snip*

if you insisted instead on working with open stuff, you'd be better of now.

Well, no, because there'd still be no standard 3D library for HTML5/JS. The best you'd have is WebGL, which works in even less places than Silverlight 3D.

If you wanted to be better off, Flash would probably have been the way to go. It's not cool to say that though....

Aug 01, 2012 at 10:37 AM, TexasToast wrote

@fanbaby:Go learn HTML/CSS/JavaScript (you don't even need HTML5 and CSS3 for most scenarios), it's a big and confusing task, and getting more 'interesting' every day with new tools/libs/environments, but you will not waste your time and development $$ like you did with SL.

Yes go ahead and learn that.   Start learning on how to steer a horse and buggy too.  

Sorry,  but just because browsers like HTML and we keep trying to get browsers to do more does not mean the future of software programming will go this way.   This is a blip and cooler and smarter heads will prevail.   Microsoft has alot of internal strife on how it wants to move ahead and right now it has not figured it out yet.   But  HTML/JavaScript is not the future of application development.

well just think about this: no matter what we think html and js just keep on gettign used a whole lot.

i am no fan of much of what JS is and i see a zillion problems but they just have not died and it looks like they will keep getting used for stuff that might be better in a "real app" but they do it in js and html anyway....   just some food for thought.

13 hours ago, figuerres wrote

*snip*

well just think about this: no matter what we think html and js just keep on gettign used a whole lot.

i am no fan of much of what JS is and i see a zillion problems but they just have not died and it looks like they will keep getting used for stuff that might be better in a "real app" but they do it in js and html anyway....   just some food for thought.

Yes what you need to ask yourself is JS getting alot of attention because it is just a great technology or is it getting attention because it sucks so bad as a technology that it needs fixing.  I think the latter is the reason.   You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.   Anders just put a facelift on the pig and a nice dress.   You want to date it go ahead.  I will take the slim beautiful model that needs no makeup.