When trying to use the slider that manages the explode feature with touch input nothing happens. When using the same slider in chrome with mouse input it works.
Behind the slider we find a <input type="range">. After some reading it seems that this html element works rather bad on touch input in general.
Even so much that there is a mini lib trying to improve range input on mobile.
https://rangetouch.com/ (which I might try out as a workaround)
Am I the only one with this problem or should this be addressed by autodesk?
The Forge Viewer dev team is testing the features on various touch devices and they're working fine, incl. the explode tool (I've just confirmed that the tool works fine on an iPhone 6S), but it's possible that your HW/SW combination is not covered in those tests. Feel free to send your specifics to forge [dot] help [at] autodesk [dot] com, and we'll forward it to the developers.
Related
Facebook recently announced the introduction of messenger codes which can be used to add new contacts and, more importantly, communicate directly with businesses and business pages (which is why I'm interested in it).
It took me ages to find it but on the bottom left of the messages tab on my Facebook page I have the option to download my code in three different sizes - clicking the disc will open a modal window where you can click the Download button and choose from 300, 600 or 1000px PNG file downloads.
NOTE: While they are PNG files the background is not transparent which seems like a bit of an oversight to me but hey ho that's what Photoshop is for I guess.
The problem is that while I can download my code I can't find any way to test it on printed materials (or even electronically at the moment!). The scanning feature doesn't seem to have been rolled out for me yet (I tried re-installing the Messenger app to see if I got a newer version but that didn't work) and nor for anyone I know (I'm in the UK). The codes are bespoke to Messenger so can't be scanned or tested using any other app.
I'm probably too far ahead of the game but is there any way I can test to see if my code scans correctly, or anywhere I can go to find out? I would like to use it on some promotional material which is likely to be long term materials that I don't want to have to update in the near future (several years, by which time it's likely these codes will be more commonplace).
I also need to know what the redundancy is like. For example the high redundancy QR codes I generate can have up to 30% of the code covered while still being usable, which is great for design purposes. I can't find any official documentation as yet for these codes at all, let alone what is required, what the spec. is etc.
I know the most likely option is 'sit and wait' but I really would rather not if possible. I've never been very patient...
Thanks
UPDATE: My Messenger app has now been updated so I can test, but I'm leaving this here in case anyone knows of another way to test perhaps? If someone doesn't have Messenger on their phone for example.
Really need your input. I have unity furniture configurator and client decided he wants make it fully adjustable depending on browser window. Would be perfect if unity can get resolution while loading.
I found this http://helloracer.com/unity/ - it is exactly same thing i need.
I cannot figure out how to achieve this result
Thanks!!!
Having in mind you tagged your question with php - you can not do that using it. You need to do it with javascript:
window.screen.availHeight
window.screen.availWidth
and somehow transfer it to your php code, which later decides what to do based on that. You can achieve it using 2 http calls in the same page.
I'm working on a Unity App where I need to load some html pages(with touch support).
I've found 3 plugins for that and each have some limitations. Are there any other good plugins so I can test and see.
These are the ones I'm currently testing
uWebKit - having a issue with higher resolutions(when swiping the carousal it gets slow with higher resolutions)
Coherent UI - Doesn't support touch events. Have to write code to make touch works properly.
Awesomium - Didn't test this, because it seems bit too expensive.
If any of you know of any other plugins for that please list them.
Thanks
Have you tried PowerUI (http://powerui.kulestar.com/) it is a plugin which renders HTML within Unity directly. (Rather than using an external web renderer, and then copying the texture into Unity).
It only renders a subset of HTML/JS, so it is primarily suited to building up interfaces from scratch, but it is quite useful, fast, and I believe it supports touch events.
Please forgive me if this answer is somewhere else on this site or online. If it is, I sure haven't found it in the past several days of searching.
What I am hoping to find is an "accurate" method of detecting a browser and redirecting to a simple, static page if not a recent browser.
The samples I have found until now often have not provided an accurate representation of the actual browser being used. For instance:
When testing with Navigator 9, I'll get a message that I'm using Firefox 2
When testing with Maxthon 3, it reports I'm using IE 9.
My site displays correctly in all the current browsers I've been testing it with. But I wish I could have a basic static page for those .01% who still are using an old browser for whatever reason. They could still get some basic information from my site, as well as encouraged to update to a more current browser.
If anyone has any useful suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate them.
Thanks so much.
Cheers,
David
Browser detection is never perfect, for a variery of reasons. If you are using jQuery, you should look into jQuery.browser.
I'd try to detect the browser on the server side and do an HTTP redirect if the browser is something non-standard. Most decent frameworks have functionality to detect the browser from the user agent string. Again, this is not perfect, mainly because of the data browsers report. Also, if Maxthon reports it's IE, that's because it is based on IE and therefore the layout engine should be the same.
So you either
support a small number of browsers and cater for their quirks, sending all other browsers to a basic page (this sucks for future versions of browsers because they might be standards-compliant but they will still display your very basic page), or
you have a standards-compliant page for all browsers and then you define alternatives for the ones that give you problems.
I'd go for the second option. It usually all boils down to one version for all browsers, and a number of hacks for various versions of IE. Also, remember to avoid padding in your CSS and use margins instead.
In the end, you probably shouldn't be testing for browsers and version numbers, but supported features. Try using Modernizr.
The $.browser property is deprecated in jQuery 1.3. On jQuery support site, they strongly recommend to use the detection feature (JQuery.support) instead of the jQuery.browser property.
Actually, this has been answered already in another question, please check here How can you detect the version of a browser?
I'm about to start a Web application that will use interactive generated 3D content. Aim is to let it run natively in the browser, i.e. no Flash is allowed, only JavaScript + HTML5.
Apart from using pure WebGL it's better to use a lib that will offer a more high level interface.
The approach of X3DOM looks great for me - and it looks like it's supposed to become native in the browser and the lib will pave the road.
But after my first impressions I'm not sure if it's lightweight enough. Apart from the 400kb JS-File it slows down Firefox.
The features I need are not many. The whole scene set up could be easily done by "hand". But I need user interaction including to figure out where the user clicks. And later I want to be able to load and insert 3D objects in a common file format.
PS: Browsers of choice are Firefox and Webkit based ones. Desktop and Mobile ones. I don't care about IE.
PPS: Yes, I know the question: WebGL Framework
X3DOM is great when you come from an X3D background (and developed by great people), but if you have no preference watsoever, Three.JS would be my pick.
I looked at most WebGL frameworks just last week, and it indeed seems almost every one of them is in the 300kB range. That's too heavy for me, too. Luckily I found lightgl.js which has everything you need to get started in 28kB, MIT license.
The main thing for me is just abstracting canvas, shader and texture initialization. But lightgl.js does also have some mouse handling and model loading etc.
i think the decision boils down to:
do you want to have a more design or programmer approach.
x3dom: its leveraging of x3d for describing the scene lends itself to a more designer approach, with just the adding of the x3dom css and js one can do this :
<X3D><Scene><Shape><Box/></Shape</Scene></X3d>
three.js: only allows for scene generation through javascript, and a lot of additional code is necessary just to set up the canvas. view the source of this simple box example: http://stemkoski.github.com/Three.js/Template.html
neither way is wrong, i prefer designing the scene and then using js when needed for any computations.