u/GundulaGaukeley

Someone provocatively threw this statement at me yesterday.

My immediate response was: No. 3D on the web isn’t dead. It’s simply that a particular way of using 3D on the web has failed.

There are understandable reasons why many people have this impression today. Clients sometimes had unrealistic expectations; on the technical side, decisions were made that proved problematic in hindsight; and, frequently, the actual target audience was not given sufficient consideration.

3D doesn’t compete with 3D – it competes with photos.
Perhaps the most important point is surprisingly rarely mentioned.

A 3D model demands more attention from the user than a photograph. You have to rotate the object, change the viewing angle and orientate yourself spatially. Our brains, on the other hand, can process photographs with virtually no effort.

That is why it is not enough simply to display a product in 3D. A 3D viewer must offer added value that a photograph cannot provide.

A sofa that can be virtually unfolded or whose fabric options can be displayed is all very well – but is that enough to justify the extra effort required of the user?

In most cases, the answer is no.

The Price of Perfection

There is also a second problem.

In recent years, the quality standards for 3D models have continued to rise. Whilst higher polygon counts, ever-larger textures and numerous additional effects produce impressive images, they also cause file sizes to increase massively.

The result is loading times that many users simply cannot accept.

If I’m already prepared to engage with a 3D viewer, I don’t want to have to wait several seconds for the model to load.

Yet this is precisely what often happens today.

These two factors reinforce each other: greater cognitive load combined with long loading times. This inevitably leads to poor user engagement figures.

When you also consider how labour-intensive and expensive it is to create high-quality 3D models, it is hardly surprising that many companies now regard the concept as a failure.

The market was viewed in too simplistic a manner

It is worth taking a look back.

Even before large companies jumped on the 3D bandwagon, there were smaller providers who were perfectly satisfied with the performance of their applications.

Why?

One possible reason lies in the target audience.

Many successful applications showcased high-priced products. Anyone buying a machine costing tens of thousands of euros or a high-end designer kitchen invests time in the purchasing decision. In such cases, an interactive 3D model can offer real added value.

The situation is different when it comes to an inexpensive piece of furniture.

Not every target audience behaves in the same way.

That is precisely why the same 3D strategy does not work for all products.

Technical decisions have unnecessarily compromised performance

Opportunities were also missed on the technical side.

In many projects, baked ambient occlusion has practically become the norm.

Visually, this is certainly appealing.

However, the cost of this is often overlooked.

One of the greatest opportunities for optimisation in modern 3D data lies in storing identical components just once and then referencing them as often as required.

It is precisely this principle that is, in many cases, made considerably more difficult or even impossible by baked ambient occlusion.

Yet shaders now exist that can calculate comparable effects in real time.

Instead of consistently utilising such alternatives, ambient occlusion has become a dogma in many quarters.

A real-world example illustrates just how great this untapped potential actually is:

Variant	Size
STEP	30 MB
GLB	172.2 MB
GLB + MeshOpt	32.5 MB
GLB + Referencing	32.9 MB
GLB + Referencing + MeshOpt	6.2 MB

No geometry was reduced whatsoever.

Simply by consistently referencing identical components, the file size is reduced by a factor of about five.

So the question is not whether 6.2 MB or 32.5 MB loads faster.

Everyone knows the answer.

Attention is the scarcest resource today

I’m also surprised at how rarely actual user behaviour has been taken into account.

Anyone wanting to reach young target audiences today isn’t just competing with other websites.

They’re competing with TikTok, Instagram and YouTube.

Whether you approve of this development or not is irrelevant.

Many users’ attention spans today are measured in a matter of seconds.

If a model takes eight seconds to load before anything even happens, the decision has often long since been made.

Enthusiasm cannot be automated

Today, many are pinning their hopes on AI.

The common assumption is that if the creation of 3D content is fully automated, the problems will sort themselves out.

I have been working with AI every day for two years.

It is an excellent tool.

It speeds up processes considerably.

What it does not, however, automatically generate are memorable experiences.

If you want to inspire people, you need ideas, narrative structure, surprises and a clear benefit. That is precisely what does not come about simply by producing content more quickly.

Automation reduces the effort involved.

It is no substitute for creativity.

My conclusions

Based on all these experiences, I have made a number of clear decisions for my own work:

1. Consistent referencing. Identical components are recognised fully automatically and shared.

2. Maximum data compression. Most of my GLB files remain under one megabyte.

3. Clear separation of data. Geometry, materials, animations and behaviour are decoupled from one another. This ensures that content remains flexible and easy to update.

4. Added value rather than an end in itself. A 3D model must achieve something that photographs cannot – such as explaining functions, supporting assembly or illustrating relationships.

5. Don’t spread boredom. Technology alone doesn’t inspire anyone. People remember experiences. Good 3D applications create precisely these experiences.

That is why my response to the claim that ‘3D on the web is dead’ is:

No. 3D is not dead. What has failed is the notion that beautiful models alone are enough. Anyone who combines fast loading times, genuine added value and a compelling user experience still has an exceptionally powerful medium in 3D on the web.