Forum

Loading time. Blend4Web vs. Sketchfab

03 July 2017 04:56
Hi,

We are currently using Sketchfab for 3D product visualization.
However, we were having issues with mobile loading time which was quite slow.
Thus, we have tested Blend4Web with the same 3D image file (obj(mesh) + jpg(texture)) and hoped it performs better.
Sketchfab needed 3.2MB data (2.1MB model data + 1.1MB rest) from the web while Blend4Web required 5.6MB (3.1MB model data + 2.5MB webplayer).

Therefore, loading time of Sketchfab was 5.73 sec while Blend4web 9.93 sec at PC. However, Blend4Web showed similar loading time as Sketchfab at mobile although it required more data to transfer.
Thus, I think blend4web will perform better at mobile if I find a way to shrink the data size similar as Sketchfab.

I am currently using webplayer+json approach.
Is there a better way to cut down required data?


Regards,
Justin

Sketchfab Link:

https://sketchfab.com/models/dee8238682bc463b9c24b52a6941512a/embed?api_version=1.0.0&api_id=8797143097674707&continuousRender=1&transparent=0&annotations_visible=0&ui_infos=0&ui_controls=0&ui_stop=1&ui_hint=0&preload=1&autostart=1

Blend4Web Link:

https://d2lkhiw89s4d86.cloudfront.net/adidas_test/webplayer.html?load=adidas_v00.json&compressed_gzip&min_capabilities&compressed_textures_pvr&compressed_textures&alpha&autorotate
03 July 2017 15:16
Hi Justin,

while Blend4Web required 5.6MB (3.1MB model data + 2.5MB webplayer).

I think you can further reduce the size by enabling gzip compression for Web Player files (HTML, CSS, JS) on your server (it makes 980 kb instead of 2.5 Mb)

DDS format used for the texture can be bulky too. It however helps to reduce memory video footprint so it is up to you whether to use it or leave JPEG.
The Founder | Twitter
 
Please register or log in to leave a reply.