three.js is the engine.
This is cool, I did a similar thing in Flash and Maya in 2002, it was all vectors rather than rasters but still 2D, just like this. Flash had a timeline where you’d just run frames based on interactions but our new and improved web technology doesn’t do this yet. You could even set framerate in flash which was great.
Is it needed? as it looks like frames tied to mouse/touch IMHO.
It’s still cool to see some progression with three.js, unfortunately it appears not to load .fbx/.obj/.stl data? Admittedly I’ve been ignoring 3D in the browser since Flash got the kibosh in 2010 and it’s great to see progression once again using open standards.
Three is used quite a bit. Look at the source code.
Ouch! surely it should be all handled by canvas + local hardware or similar to flash?
I am not an animator so I would not render judgement on that. Not something I have free time to explore more.
MovieClip / Timeline based interaction would be useful from an interaction standpoint in Webflow but timing may be an issue due to being inherently tied to Hz/Refresh/Local Time in the HTML world, you know a lot more about that than me so is that why animators can’t define framerate outside of something like Flash / Run Time Environments?
This was in my bookmarks from research I did on another project. > MDN rocks. Good reference.
The main thing with an animator/video/film/moving image hat on is that the “ideal” is set at 60fps/60hz which appears un-natural/like a video game for anyone used to thinking in key frames. Framerate definition is more important to artistic impact than striving for an “ideal” 60fps/60hz. Artists want 15/24/25/29.97/30 fps as a baseline rather than an imagined ideal. I’ve never personally watched a 60fps film without it looking wrong IMHO, likewise for anything moving. I totally get 24/25/30 fps looks right because it’s what a lot of old school people are used to but there’s a resonance and absorption of the content that comes with familiarity.