a_bertrand wrote:I used Three.js because somehow when I tried Babylon wasn't offering me the right tools. If I remember right it was a question of importing models from my pipeline. I would say both are mostly the same in term of features, so pick one and go for it.
However be warned that I don't think the web is really ready for 3D, the reason is that a full 3D game can have GB of game asset and no browser will keep those in their cache. This lead to massive load time and massive load on your server. Sure if you have small game asset it may still work for you.
This is very true. I think for my purposes it will work out, though, because actually being in 3D is going to save
me a ton of space. Straight 2D would require me to have bitmaps of every wall from a number of different angles, probably causing 1MB of assets for every single wall. With 3D, I only need one and I can use it to texture a plane and can move it around as needed. And I think a lot of that space in 3D games comes from 3D models and 3D animations, neither of which I will be using. I do agree with you that true 3D games really are a bit early for the browser but I am hoping my uses will work out because they are so minimal.
hallsofvallhalla wrote:Three.js for sure. I actually started this same project on Three.js sometime ago before moving to Unity. I will try to find it. I will also put up my Unity version this afternoon. It is coming along nicely.
I think I was leaning towards Three.js. It will probably be easier for me to work with since it is just a general-purpose WebGL library instead of a game engine. My worries would have been that Babylon would have required me to set up a game world or something else like that when I really just want to make planes, texture them, set a camera location and then move the planes into specific locations and nothing else. No game loop, no dynamic game world, etc.