Re: VRML instead of STL

From: BAU (
Date: Mon Jan 08 1996 - 16:13:03 EET

>Gary Scholl wrote:
>> 2) "The VRML proposal provides a more compact and elegant data
>> -- Yea, that's nifty, I like that. However, lots of us have already
>> invested in dealing with the STL format so the cost of conversion is
>> high when compared with the added value of the space saving.

>The compactness point has not been shown. The original poster compared
>a VRML file to an ASCII STL file. This was probably so that apples
>could be compared to apples (i.e., both formats are ASCII). Such a
>comparison is misleading. A currently unanswered question is whether
>a VRML file is smaller than the corresponding binary STL file.

> --> Mike Brindley

Original SLA User Part as found in the STL Archive, gzip compressed: 21
... as uncompressed ASCII STL file: 370 kByte.
... as uncompressed binary STL file: 73 kByte.
... as uncompressed (ASCII) VRML .wrl file: 60 kByte.
.... as gzip compressed VRML .wrl file: 18 kByte.
For larger freeformed objects, the ratio between "STL binary, gzip
compressed" and "VRML ASCII, gzip compressed" will increase, so VRML will
be MORE than 10 percent smaller.

I tried hard to keep track to the discussion and updated the s2v page in
order "not to send junk" to the list.
You may re-load the page at:

Mirrors most of this discussion, explains VRML and supplies valuable

Have fun - flames to my direct e-mail, please !

;-) Regards, Juergen

Dipl. Ing. Juergen Bauer, BIBA, P.O. Box 33 05 60, 28 335 Bremen,
Phone: +49/421/218-5595, Fax: +49/421/218-5510, Email:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:37:05 EEST