Talk:Additive manufacturing file format

Significance

This page describes an important standard and should remain on wikipedia. It is no different than its predecessor, the STL, which is also used extensively on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_(file_format) -- Hod Lipson

I agree with this. However I can understand why it appears very technical. Could one explain what a vertice is in the context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.140.38 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic meets notability requirements because it is verifyable by an established international third party (ASTM), and it relies on a premanent source (as cited). Additional sources may be added in the future (e.g. ISO). I have asked the hep of the community to add sources and improve clarity. -- Hod Lipson

I disagree with the statement about WP:N. The notability requirement involves secondary sources; the standard is a primary source. What we have is several people got together and published a standard. Now secondary sources are needed to pass judgment on that standard. Currently the article has no indication of AMF acceptance in the field. AMF wants to be a successor to STL, but has it really become the successor? A Hod Lipson is also listed as a contact point for AMF, so you have a WP:COI and are not independent of the subject. Glrx (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I will seek secondary sources and hope that others also edit this entry. --Hod Lipson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodlipson (talk • contribs) 01:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, to be clear, you may edit the article. Editors with a COI just need to be extra careful about their bias creeping into what they do. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

critic: chargment for an open format?

the format specification can not be obtained freely therefore its is no open format and it should be noted that this entry is probably only existent due to commercial interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.155.252 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea and no one in their right mind would want to use this format. I mean XML for encoding geometry? What the flying actual fuck! Some degenerate piece of shit somewhere was sitting around thinking "How can I make these megabyte files into gigabyte files" - "XML!" Coming soon: XML voxel tomograms! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.215.60 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 October 2012

Agreed. *Major* weakness of XML ? Encoding numbers. Because XML doesn't actually do that; it organizes strings and leaves it entirely up to the app to interpret them as numbers. So, AMF is pretty much a textbook example of putting a square peg into a lamp socket. At least some formats allow e.g. <point xyz="11,-2.3,4"/> this doesn't even bother with that. And saying "compression makes it better" is a lame excuse - you've now got an even insanely higher processing time per xyz than the plain format, and hundreds (if not thousands) more than a binary format.

It's also worth pointing out that 32-bit floats are entirely adequate for 3d printing, and that by encoding them in binary you preserve exact values. By encoding them in text you are at risk of different implementations writing or reading different things.

These issues can be solved by also defining a binary format supporting the same data model, so it can be converted to/from the text format without external info; and requiring its support, so we don't need to use the text format at all. And, simplify the XML; take a look at SVG for instance. Or use json (which can represent numbers as numbers) instead of XML for the text format.

174.89.102.248 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about programming/file formats, but I do know that collada is a 3D format based uppon XML. What's wrong with AMF that isn't with collada? Some-random-3dprinting-guy (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]